SOUTHERN SLAVERY 



IN ITS 



PRESENT ASPECTS: 



CONTAINING 



A REPLY 



TO A LATE WORK OF THE 



BISHOP OF VERMONT ON SLAVERY. 



BY/ 

DANIEL R. GOODWIN. 



PHILADELPHIA; 

J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO 

18C4. 



^'.- -i^l 



M7 1 5" 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, by 

DANIEL R. GOODWIN, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania. 



ADVEKTISEMENT. 



"When the late work of the Bishop of Yermont 
on Slavery first appeared, it seemed to me, in com- 
mon with many of my clerical brethren, from what 
I could learn indirectly of its character and con- 
tents, that it was not worth while to trouble the 
public with an answer. Until the latter part of 
April I had never read the book. But the late 
lamented Benjamin Gerhard, Esq, of this city, in 
a conversation with me, about that time, took an 
entirely different view from that which I enter- 
tained and expressed ; and earnestly insisted that 
it ought to be answered, and that I should answer 
it. At his urgent and repeated solicitations, the 
work was at length undertaken ; and, after his 
death, I felt bound to complete it, as an act of 
obedience to his d^-ing commands. If the per- 
formance has any merit, I desire it to stand as a 
tribute to the memory of one who was a kind and 
faithful friend, as well as an unflinching and de- 
voted patriot. Its defects will of course belong 
exclusively to myself. 

D. R. GOODWIN. 

Philadelphia, September, 1864. 

(iii) 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Page 
THE "protest" AND ITS DEFENCE, 7 



CHAPTER II. 

THE "christian BISHOP's" LETTER, AND AN ANSWER, . 28 

CHAPTER III. 

THE NEW GOSPEL OF SLAVERY, 70 

CHAPTER IV. 

SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES, 86 

CHAPTER V. 

SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH, 120 

CHAPTER VI. 

SLAVERY AND ETHICS, 1G8 

1* (y) 



VI CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER VII. 

Page 
SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE : — SUPERIOR AND INFE- 
RIOR RACES, 212 



CHAPTER VIII. 

SLAYERY AND EMANCIPATION: — THE LABOURING CLASSES, 244 

CHAPTER IX. 

SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION, 282 

CHAPTER X. 

SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION, 307 



SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE "protest" and ITS DEFENCE. 

Protest of the Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese of Pennsylvania 
against Bishop Hopkins^s Letter on African Slavery. 







K the ISth day of April, 1863, certain gentlemen 
of Philadelphia, Messrs. George M. Wharton, 
A. Erowning, John Stockton Littell, Samuel Jackson, 
M.D., Charles J. Eiddle and Peter McCall, addressed 
a note to the Eight Rev. John Henry Hopkins, D.D., 
Bishop of the Eiocese of Yermont, requesting him 
to favor them with his " views on the ScrijDtural 
aspect of Slavery.'' 

" We believe," they said, " that false teachings on 
this subject have had a great deal to do Avith bring- 
ing on the unhappy strife between two sections of 
our common country, and that a lamentable degree 
of ignorance prevails in regard to it;" and they con- 
cluded by expressing the belief, " that the communi- 
cation of his views as a Christian Eishop on the 
Scriptural aspect of Slavery, may contribute" to the 
formation of a " sound public opinion on this topic." 

On the 2d day of May, 1863, Eishoj) Hopkins re- 

(7) 



8 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

plied to this note by saying, that in January, 1861, 
he had published a pamphlet on the subject referred 
to, which was at their service; that the views then 
and there set forth were not only unchanged, but 
that the numerous replies had " strengthened his 
conviction as to the sanction which the Scriptures 
give to the principle of Negro Slavery, so long as it 
is administered in accordance with the precepts laid 
down by the Apostles," and that " such was the uni- 
versal doctrine of Christian ministers. Christian 
lawyers and Christian statesmen one hundred years 
ago, with a few exceptions/' 

" With this brief introduction,^' the Eishop said, 
^' I proceed to the very serious question which your 
friendly application has submitted for discussion" — 
thus endorsing and re-issuing the original document. 

In the letter in which Bishop Hopkins discusses 
this question of I^egro Slavery, he maintains that 
the Holy Scriptures established the principle of per- 
petual bondage, ^^ servitude for life descending to the off- 
spritig." 

He also asserts that the truths which lie at the 
foundation of the Declaration of Independence, 
"that all men are created equal, and that they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness," are '^ no truths at all," that 
these rights are only " imaginary," that he " utterly 
discards" them, and " doubts whether the annals of 
civilized mankind can furnish a stronger instance of 
unmitigated perversity" than that of " our orators, 
our preachers, and our politicians" in their appeals 
to this famous document to justify the doctrine of 
universal liberty. 



THE "protest/' and its defence. 9 

The Bishop also justifies the " presumed cruelty" 
of the system of Slavery by the facts that '' ^Northern 
law allows the same in the case of children and ap- 
prentices," and that the "Saviour himself used a 
scourge of small cords when he drove the money- 
changers from the temple/' " Are our modern phi- 
lanthropists/' he asks, " more merciful than Christ 
and wiser than the Almighty ?" 

The separation of husband and wife, of parents 
and children, he extenuates by the fact that the 
laboring man places his children out to service and 
as ap23rentices, that many leave " their homes to seek 
their fortunes in the gold regions," and that " many 
in EurojDe have abandoned their families for Aus- 
tralia, or the United States, or the Canadas." 

The conclusion which the Bishop arrives at is 
this : " The Slavery of the Kegro Eace as maintained 
in the Southern States aj)pears to me fully authorized 
both in the Old and l!^ew Testament." — "That very 
slavery, in my humble judgment; has raised the ne- 
gro incomparably higher in the scale of humanity, 
and seems in fact to be the only instrumentality 
through which the heathen posterity of Ham have 
been raised at all." ^ 

Such are some of the views of Bishop Hopkins on 
the subject of African Slavery, as set forth in his 
letter to these gentlemen of Philadelphia — but the 
document itself should be read to appreciate its 
character. This letter was scattered broadcast over 
the State of Pennsylvania. As coming from a Bishop 
who is widely known throughout the Diocese, the 
Bishop and Clergy of Pennsylvania felt constrained 
to enter against it the following Protest: 



10 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

The subscribers deeply regret that the fact of the 
extensive circulation throughout this Diocese of a 
letter by " John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of the Dio- 
cese of Yermont," in defence of Southern Slavery, 
compels them to make this public protest. It is not 
their province to mix in any political canvass. But 
as ministers of Christ, in the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, it becomes them to deny any complicity or 
sympathy with such a defence. 

This attempt not only to apologize for slavery in 
the abstract, but to advocate it as it exists in the 
cotton States, and in States which sell men and 
women in the open market as their staple product, 
is, in their judgment, unworthy of any servant of 
Jesus Christ. As an effort to sustain, on Bible prin- 
ciples, the States in rebellion against the govern- 
ment, in the wicked attempt to establish by force of 
arms a tyranny under the name of a Eepublic, whose 
*' corner-stone" shall be the perpetual bondage of the 
African, it challenges their indignant reprobation. 

Philadelphia, September, 1863. 

Alonzo Potter, Thomas S. Yocum, 

John Eodney, Benjamin Dorr, 

E. A. Washburne, Jehu C. Clay, 

Peter Van Pelt, William Saddards, 

H. W. Ducachet, D. E. Goodwin, 

John S. Stone, M. A. DeW. Howe, 

George Leeds, Henry S. Spackman, 

Eichard D. Hall, James May, 

Joseph D. Newlin, John A. Childs, 

B. Wistar Morris, Thomas C. Yarnall, 

Daniel S. Miller, Edward Loundsbery, 

Kingston Goddard, Henry M. Stuart, 



THE ''PROTEST, AND ITS DEFENCE. 



11 



Phillips Brooks, 
Addison B. Atkins, 
Herman Hooker, 
Benjamin Watson, 
Edward L. Lycett, 
Lewis W. Gibson, 
E. W. Oliver, 
Henry Brown, 
W. E. Stockton, 
Edward A. Foggo, 
J. Isador Mombert, 
Joel Eudderow, 
Archibald Beatty, 
C. A. L. Eichards, 
George A. Strong, 
Gustavus M. Murray, 
George W. Shinn, 
Samuel Hall, 
George G. Field, 
Eeese C. Evans, 
Eobert G. Chase, 
Samuel Hazlehurst, 
Edwin !N". Lightner, 
David C. Page, 
John Cromlish, 
William Preston, 
George Slattery, 
Francis J. Clerc, 
Eobert J. Parvin, 
Eichard Newton, 
G. Emlen Hare, 
W. W. Spear, 
H. J. Morton, 
Jacob M. Douglass, 
K. A. Garden, 



J. Gordon Maxwell, 
John A. Yaughan, 
Charles D. Cooper, 
Wilbur F. Paddock, 
Thomas Crumpton, 
George D. Miles, 
B. B. Killikelly, 
Alexander McLeod, 
Leighton Coleman, 
Eichard Smith, 
Thomas H. Cullen, 
J. McAlpin Harding, 
William Ely, 
Marison Byllesby, 
J. Livingston Eeese, 
Augustus A. Marple, 
B. T. JSToakes, 

D. Otis Kellogg, 
Daniel Washburn, 
Samuel E. Smith, 
Treadwell Walden, 
Herman L. Duhrinc:, 
Charles M. Dupuy, 
John H. Babcock, 
Anson B. Hard, 
George A. Latimer, 

E. Heber l^ewton, 
John C. Furey, 
Charles A. Maison, 
Charles W. Quick, 
H. T. Wells, 

D. C. Millett, 
J. W. Leadenham, 
Frederick W. Beasley, 
John P. Lundy, 



12 



SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 



E. C. Matlack, 
Ii. Ward Smith, 
Samuel E. Appleton, 
William J. Alston, 
John Adams Jerome, 
Joseph A. Stone, 
Albra Wadleigh, 
W. S. Perkins, 
Francis E. Arnold, 
George H. Jenks, 
AYilliam S. Heaton, 
Eobert B. Peet, 
John Eeynolds, 
William Hilton, 
Washington B. Erben, 
John Ireland, 
Benjamin J. Douglass, 

D. C. James, 

E. N. Potter, 

W. H. D. Hatton, 
Thomas W. Martin, 
Alfred Elwyn, 
James W. Eobins, 
George Bringhurst, 
Charles W. Duane, 
George B. Allinson, 
Joseph IT. Mulford, 
James DeW. Perry, 
Thomas G. Clemson, 
Francis D. Hoskins, 
William P. Lewis, 
J. L. Ileysinger, 
John Long, 
Ormes B. Keith, 
William N. Diehl, 



George A. Crooke, 
Eichardson Graham, 
E. S. Watson, 
Samuel Edwards, 
George A. Durborow, 
Joseph E. Moore, 
Thomas B. Barker, 
S. Tweedale, 
Marcus A. Tolman, 
John H. Drumm, 
S. ITewton SjDear, 
Louis C. J^ewman, 
Edward C. Jones, 
E. W. Hening, 
Samuel Durborow, 
C. 0. Parker, 
Henry Purdon, 
Benjamin H. Abbott, 
John H. Marsden, 
Samuel B. Dalrymple, 
William Y. Feltw^cll, 
•John Leithead, 
George C. Drake, 
Peter Eussell, 
Eoberts Paul, 
George Kirke, 
Henry B. Bartow, 
John K. Murphy, 
J. F. Ohl, 
John Tetlow, 
J. C. Laverty, 
Charles Higbee, 
William Wright, 
S. T. Lord. 
Charles E. Hall. 



THE "PROTEST," AND ITS DEFENCE. 13 

Such is the much-abused Protest of the Clergy 
of Pennsylvania against the pro-slavery letter of 
the Bishop of Yermont. The gentlemen who asked 
for the letter are not obscure men in Church or 
State, but prominent politicians of notorious parti- 
zan affinities. The letter itself began to be circu- 
lated in Pennsylvania (so far as I have been able 
to ascertain) in the month of August, 1863, just on 
the eve of a sharply-contested political campaign. 
Under these circumstances the Protest was issued. 
It called forth a retort from Bishop Hopkins, fol- 
lowed by a book entitled ''A View of Slavery," 
containing an elaborate defence of the institution, 
" Scriptural, Ecclesiastical and Historical." To this 
book and the letter I propose, in the sequel, to make 
a brief reply. But first of all the Protest, and the 
manner in which it has been treated, demand some 
further passing remark. 

The circumstances under which the Protest was 
issued, its substance, style and spirit, are before the 
reader. "What, now, are the style and spirit of the 
Bishop's retort? "A gross insult," "a false accusa- 
tion," "a bitter and unjust assault," "vituperation," 
" reviling," " vilifying," " grossly insulting," " brand- 
ing and calumniating," "personal defamation," 
"endorsing a calumny," "slander," "gross libel," 
"insulting aggression," "false and violent accusa- 
tion," "bitter and groundless accusation," "gross 
and scandalous libel," "public and libellous denun- 
ciation," "false and libellous Protest," "demented:" 
such are some of the terms and epithets poured 
forth by the meek and charitable and pious Bishop, 
so strictly Apostolical, so exceeding Christ-like, who 
" trusts that ho has learned, when he is reviled, not 
2 



14 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

to revile again." One is tempted to ask whether he 
really supx^oses that scripture to imply, conversely, 
that when a Christian is not reviled at all, then he 
may revile as much as he will ? For, what reviling, 
vilifying, calumny, vituperation, slander, insult, or 
libel, with or without the epithets false, bitter, gross, 
groundless, scandalous, &c., can be found in the Pro- 
test? 

" The subscribers deeply regret that the fact of 
the extensive circulation through this Diocese of a 
letter by ' John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of the Dio- 
cese of Yermont,' in defence of Southern Slavery, 
compels them to make this public protest. It is not 
their province to mix in any political canvass. But 
as ministers of Christ, in the. Protestant Episcopal 
Church, it becomes them to deny any complicity or 
sympathy with such a defence." Is there any re- 
viling, vilifying, calumny, vituperation, slander, in- 
sult, or libel in that ? " This attempt not only to 
apologize for slavery in the abstract, but to advocate 
it as it exists in the cotton States, and in States which 
sell men and women in the open market as their 
staple product, is, in their judgment, unworthy of 
any servant of Jesus Christ." Can Bishop Hopkins 
say that he did not attempt to apologize for slavery? 
If so, it must be because he will maintain that de- 
fending it as in itself right and good, as an unspeak- 
able blessing to master and slave, as scriptural and 
Christian, and denouncing its opponents as impious. 
Infidels, and rebels against the divine government, 
cannot be called an attempted apology, but a bold and 
defiant vindication. But this would only strengthen 
the ground of the Protest. Will he say that his 
letter, so circulated, was not an attempt to advocate 



THE "protest/' and ITS DEFENCE. 15 

slavery as it exists in the cotton States, and in States 
which sell men and women in the open market as 
their staple product ? But, in his letter, he says ex- 
pressly : " The slavery of the negro race, as main- 
tamed in the Southern States, appears to me fully au- 
thorized both in the Old and the New Testament." 
I suppose he will not deny that some of the slave 
States are familiarly called Cotton States, or that in 
others men and women are sold in the 0]^en market, 
and are bred with a view to such a sale. So much 
for the facts; then follows the judgment that such 
an attempt is " unworthy of any servant of Jesus 
Christ." 

The facts being admitted, is this judgment to be 
charged as reviling, vilifying, calumny, vituperation, 
slander, insult, libel ? It was undoubtedly the sin- 
cere and conscientious judgment of those who uttered 
it. It was uttered with deep regret. It is not per- 
sonal. It characterizes the act and not the man; or 
rather if it does by implication characterize the man 
it characterizes him as contradistinguished from the 
act; for if the act were unworthy of any servant 
of Jesus Christ, still more was it unworthy of any 
Christian Bishop, and especially unworthy of the 
venerable and learned Bishop of Vermont. 

There remains only the final sentence of the Pro- 
test : "As an effort to sustain, on Bible principles, 
the States in rebellion against the government, in 
the wicked attempt to establish by force of arms a 
tyranny under the name of a Eepublic, whose ^ cor- 
ner-stone' shall be the perpetual bondage of tho 
African, it challenges their indignant reprobation." 

Here it is to be observed tbat the letter of Bishop 
Hopkins is not expressly declared to bo such an 



16 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

'' effort" as is described ] but it is declared that, re- 
garded as such, it challenges indignant reprobation. 
The signers of the Protest undoubtedly thought it 
might and would be so regarded. Originating as it 
did, and being circulated as it was, had they not a 
right so to think ? For myself, I cannot doubt that 
the leaders of the so-called Peace-democracy are 
now, and were then, the most venomous and danger- 
ous enemies of their country, and the most insidious 
and efficient supporters of the wicked rebellion that 
is raging against its existence and integrity, that are 
anywhere to be found. They may be too cautious 
or too cowardly to incur the legal criminality of 
aiding and abetting that rebellion 3 but while they 
desire its success, sympathize with its perpetrators, 
and give it their moral countenance and support, 
they take upon themselves the full burden of its 
moral guilt. This sentiment I desire to place on 
record as my calm deliberate judgment. 

How far all the signers of the Protest may agree 
in the sentiment I know not. One thing is plain — 
the letter in question was sought and circulated as 
an electioneering document. As such, and as tending 
to commit them and their Church to the defence of 
negro slavery and the support of the Southern re- 
bellion, it fell under the notice of the clergy of Penn- 
sylvania. They attacked no person or persons. They 
accused no individual of treason, rebellion, or sedi- 
tion. They uttered no crimination. They pronounced 
a moral judgment. And, in so doing, they avoided 
personality^ as far as possible, for they simply dis« 
claimed and denounced the document itself. That 
that document actually tended to strengthen the 
hands of the rebellion, and weaken the hands of the 



THE "protest/' and ITS DEFENCE. 17 

government in the pending struggle, who can deny? 
Who of all the rebels would not rejoice in its circu- 
lation and influence ? So far as it Avent it would 
manifestly operate on their side. And, under the 
circumstances, was there not good reason to pre- 
sume that it was intended so to operate. 'No mere 
act can be condemned, without assuming a motive. 
That motive is to be assumed of course which stands 
printed and patent on the face of the act, unless the 
contrary is shown. The burden of proof is on the 
other side. Bishop Hopkins has since, indeed, " ut- 
terly denied that he either wrote his pamphlet for 
the service of any political party, or gave his con- 
sent to the publication of the Bible View of Slavery, 
under an expectation at the time that it would be 
used by any such party.'' It is hard enough to be- 
lieve this, now that the Bishop expressly gives his 
word for it. But before this disclaimer, and looking 
at the facts as they were, I contend that the signers 
of the Protest were justified in presuming the docu- 
ment to have been issued with an intelligent know- 
ledge of the circumstances of the case, of the pur- 
poses for which it was to be used, and of the results 
which it was fitted to accomplish. The letter was 
asked for with the professed view of correcting " the 
false teachings which have had a great deal to do 
with bringing on the unhappy strife between two 
sections of our common country." Observe hero 
that the war waged by the Southern insurgents is 
not recognized as a rebellion against our common 
country, but as an unhappy sectional strife, engen- 
dered in great measure by the anti-slavery doctrines 
of the North. Could a man of common sense and 
common intelligence be supposed to doubt of the 

9* 



18 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

political character and aims of the men who in snch 
terms asked for that "letter?" In his answer tho 
Bishoj) offers them the pamphlet of January, 1861, 
to which they had referred, "in its original form;" 
and declares that since its issue " he has seen no 
cause to change his opinion." That pamphlet con- 
tained a formal defence of secession. " First," says 
he, " it may be asked, w^hether the Southern States 
have a right to secede for any cause ? Secondly, if 
they have the right, is the cause sufficient to justify 
its exercise ? In my humble judgment they have a right 
to secede.'^ These passages were omitted in the letter 
as re-published and circulated in Pennsylvania, whe- 
ther by the prudence of the astute politicians who 
asked for it, or by the Bishop himself, does not cer- 
tainly appear. The latter would, on some accounts, 
seem the more probable ; for the personal response 
to those politicians is closed thus : " With this brief 
introduction, I proceed to the very serious question 
which your friendly application has submitted for 
discussion. Your faithful servant in Christ, John II. 
Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont;" and 
then the whole letter, without any marks of erasure 
or omission, is closed anew with the signature, " I 
remain, with great regard, your faithful servant in 
Christ, John H. Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of 
Vermont." 

From this the natural inference would seem to bo, 
that the letter was expurgated and prepared by tho 
Bishop himself for its re-issue ; although it would 
seem, also, from his previous statement, that he left 
his political friends the option of taking it cither 
"in its originaV^ or in its amended form. At all 



THE ''protest/' and ITS DEFENCE. 19 

events, whatever the re-issue contains must he regarded 
as dating in 1863, and not in 1861. 

It will not do for the Bishop to maintain that, be- 
ing published before the formation of the Southern 
Confederacy, it cannot be intended " to support the 
wicked attemj)t to establish by force of arms a 
tyranny under the name of a Republic, whose ' cor- 
ner-stone' shall be the perpetual bondage of the 
African." So far as such a defence is a quasi confes- 
sion that, if issued in 1863, the letter might fairly 
be considered as having such an intent ; the Bishop 
has admitted his own guilt. For it luas issued by 
his own authority, and probably with his special 
revision, in 1863. Its present date is 1863. In 1863 
it was to do its work. To 1863 it had its proper 
application. And though the direct defence of se- 
cession is not re-issued in 1863, the document which 
is issued contains the following among other state- 
ments : " Who are we that are ready to trample on 
the doctrine of the Bible, and tear to shreds the 
Constitution of our country, and even plunge the 
land into the untold horrors of civil war, and yet 
boldly pray to the God of Israel to bless our very 
acts of rebellion against his own sovereign au- 
thority ?" 

Now, when the Bishop says " we," he certainly 
does not mean exclusively himself and his i^olitical 
friends. It is manifest he means the people, the free 
and freedom-loving people, the loyal people, of the 
J^orth. And he charges them with trampling on the 
doctrine of the Bible, tearing in shreds the Constitu- 
tion of their country, and even plunging the land into 
the untold horrors of civil icar, and yet boldly prayinf** 
to the God of Israel to bless their very acts of rebel- 



20 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

jion af»;ainfit his own sovereign finthority; and this, 
revised and piiblishcd in 1863 ! Is not this open en- 
couragement and justification to the Southern insur- 
gents? Is not this " an effort to sustain the States 
in rebellion against the government ?" The signers 
of the Protest thought it might naturally be so re- 
garded. 1 submit to the intelligent reader that they 
were justified in so thinking, and in saying what 
they thought. And so thinking, they declared that 
it challenged their " indignant reprobation.'' Now 
here, if anywhere, must be found the " reviMng, vili- 
fying, calumny, vituperation, slander, insult and 
lil^el — false, bitter, gross, groundless, scandalous, and 
demented." Let the reader quietly set against all 
these terms and epithets, the simple expression, 
uttered with deep regret, of "indignant reproba- 
tion." Is, then, John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of the 
Diocese of Vermont, entirely above the reproof of 
his brethren ? Is their reproof, their " indignant 
reprobation," and that too not of him, but of one 
of his acts, to be met with such language as he has 
poured forth upon it ? Are the claims of the Bishop 
of Yermont higher than those of the Pope of Pome ? 
Is the Bishop of Yermont superior to St. Peter him- 
self? The Apostle Paul once "withstood Peter to 
the face, because he was to be blamed," and severely 
reproved him, and that publicly, — " before them all." 
Wo do not read that St. Peter retorted with charges 
of "reviling, vilifying, calumny, vituperation, slan- 
der, insult, and libel, false, bitter, gross, groundless, 
scandalous and demented." If we may suppose ho 
had attained to the " ornament of a meek and quiet 
spirit" so conspicuously displayed by the Bishop of 



T,nE "protest," and its defence. 21 

Vermont, he certainly had not learned the dialect in 
which that spirit has found its utterance. 

One thing more. The signers of the Protest had 
reason to denounce Bishop Hopkins's letter when 
sent by him into the Diocese of Pennsylvania for 
circulation, not only as calculated to encourage the 
rebellion and to bring into contempt our common 
Christianity, but especially as tending to place the 
Episcopal Church in a false position before the world, 
and as being virtually the obtrusion of one Bishop 
into the Diocese of another. Of course I do not hero 
use the word obtrusion in any technical, legal sense, 
but in its moral and practical signification. Tho 
Bishop could not be ecclesiastically tried and con- 
victed for the act he committed. But it does not 
follow from that, that its commission was any tho 
more consistent with the principles of manliness, or 
with the rules of courtesy and fraternal intercourse. 
The Bishop forthwith raises himself to his full height, 
and challenges ecclesiastical prosecution. But is his 
standard of moral duty graduated to the level of 
legal obligation ? What would he think of tho 
honesty of a man who, upon being asked to pay a 
debt, should reply, "the term of the statute of limi- 
tions is past, I owe you nothing, no legal debt, suo 
me if you dare V 

But the Bishop insists that the issuing of the 
" letter" was not an " official act." Of course it was 
not an " official act," in the sense of being an act 
specifically authorized and appointed by the law of 
the Church as pertaining to his Episcopal office. 
Indeed it is rather as an officious than as an official 
act that it is complained of And yet there are se- 
veral things which tend to show that it assumed to 



22 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

be of, at least, a semi-official character. The writer 
AvaB expressly requested to give his " views as a 
Christian Bishop.^' To the views which he gave in 
response he affixed his signature as " Bishop of the 
Diocese of Vermont." 

Whether, therefore, it were an " official act" or not, 
it was, on the face of it, an act performed as a Bishop, 
and would have, and was intended to have, the weight 
and moral influence of a Bishop's authority. At least 
so the signers of the Protest, it Avould seem, had a 
right to presume. But Bishop Hopkins denies their 
right to make this inference; because, says he, the 
Archbishop of Canterbury might publish a book, on 
Avhose title-page he should be described as "Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury," and yet such a publication 
Avould not thereby be made official; and because, 
even in private correspondence, his Grace always 
retains his official designation, thus, Joh. Cantuar; 
and in like manner the English Bishops generally. 
I will not call these suggestions a subterfuge. I will 
leave it to the reader to characterize them appro- 
priately. Suppose the Archbishop should affix such 
a signature to his " views," when the}" had been ex- 
pressly desired, and were accompanied by the state- 
ment that they had been expressl}' desired, as the 
views of a Christian Archbishop ? What then ? Bo- 
sides, is Bishop Hopkins accustomed to translate the 
style of their Anglican Lordships, and affix his sig- 
nature to his every-day private correspondence as 
'■' Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont." This certainly 
is not the custom of the American Bishops generally ; 
and the signers of the Protest had no reason to sup- 
pose it Avas the custom of his lordship of Vermont. 
The Bishop suggests that he published his letter or 



THE ''protest," and its defence. 23 



pamphlet in fulfilment of his ordination vows — " so 
to minister the doctrine and sacraments and disci- 
pline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as 
this Church hath received the same," and " with all 
faithful diligence to banish and drive away from the 
Church all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary 
to God's word." 

Being then in fulfilment of his ordination vows, 
was the publication, or was it not, '' an oflicial act ?" 
And did those vows require him to exercise the 
functions referred to, in his own diocese, or in the 
diocese of a brother Bishop ? If his brother Bishop 
were faithfully performing his ordination vows, such 
interference would seem quite unnecessary; and if he 
were violating them, why not present him for trial? 
Indeed it might not have been amiss, for one so scru- 
pulous in the exact observance of duty, to have 
noted what is added to each of the " ordination 
vows" which he has cited; — to the first, "so that 
you teach the x^eople committed to your care and charge 
with all diligence to keep and observe the same;" 
and to the second, " and to use both public and pri- 
vate monitions, as well to the sick as to the whole, 
within your cure, as need shall require and occasion 
shall be given." 

It is curious to observe that, further on in his book, 
(p. 215,) the Bishop having made a long citation 
" from a late work of the Eev. Chr. Wordsworth, 
D.D., Canon of Westminster," adds, "with these ex- 
cellent comments of the Eev. Canon Wordsworth, I 
concur most heartily: in fervent tliankfulness to 
God, that up to the year 1850, our venerated mother 
Church of England has proclaimed none other but 
the pure doctrine of the Apostles, and that her latest 



24 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

utterance is in harmony with the only divine stand- 
ard of wisdom, truth, and peace." Thus the Church 
of England is represented as speaking, as making 
" her latest utterance" by the mouth or pen of Canon 
Wordsworth. But was that work of Canon Words- 
worth an " oflScial act?" Could he be considered as 
representing the Church of England? — as, in any 
sense or to any degree committing the Church of 
England to his views ? If so, let the Bishop apply 
the same mode of reasoning to his own case; and if 
not so, let him interpret the language of the friends 
of the Protest as he would have his own interpreted. 
It would seem, after all, he can sometimes take a 
common sense view of a case, and abandon the tech- 
nicalities of his special pleading, when he sees fit. 

Together with the Protest, Bishop Hopkins has 
printed at large in his book a list of those who signed 
it; to give them, as he says, notoriety, if he cannot 
give them fame. If, in so doing, he thought to 
inflict on them any pain, or sense of ignominy, he 
made an egregious mistake. Their only pain pro- 
ceeds from the pity which they feel for him; and 
from their sense of the shame and contumely which 
in their humble judgment he is doing his utmost to 
bring upon the cause of Christ and his Church. If 
they are to meet the judgment of the Christian 
world and of posterity as standing in any relation 
to the Bishop's political and pro-slavery letter, they 
will be proud to meet it with their indignant Protest. 
If their names are to be remembered hereafter, they 
will rejoice to have them remembered as the names 
of men who loved their country and sought to rescue 
her in her hour of extreme peril, who loved the 
cause of humanity and freedom, of civilization and 



THE "PROTEST," AND ITS DEFENCE 



25 



justice, who pitied the poor outcast, and the op- 
pressed, who sought not to rivet but to break the 
chains of the slave, and thus to cherish the spirit, 
and imitate the character of Him who came to pro- 
claim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the 
prison to them that are bound, to preach the accepta- 
ble year — the Jubilee — of the Lord. The Bishop 
compliments " the Christian and manly course of 
those who refused to set their names to that most 
unwarrantable document." That the Bishop may 
have the full benefit of those names, it may not be 
improper to give here a list of the Clergy of Penn- 
sylvania, having seats in the Convention, as they 
ai')pear in the Diocesan Journal of 1863, omitting 
the 164 who signed the Protest, and those who are 
believed to have removed from the Piocese, or to 
have been absent at the time of its issue. That list 
is as follows : — 



AYilliam Bacon Stevens, 
Alfred M. Abel, 
George B. Allen, 
Thomas G-. Allen, 
Hurley Baldy, 
Charles R. Bonnel, 
William Y. Bowers, 
Rowland Hill Brown,* 
Edward Y. Buchanan, 
R. T. Chase, 
J. ^Y. Claxton, 
Alexander Gr. Cummins, 
Thomas J. Davis, 
Samuel D. Day, 
Charles P. Edmunds, 
3 



R. H. Lee, 
T. J. Littell, 
J. G. Lyons, 
Henry Mackay, 
R. C. Moore, 
William Newton, 
William H. Paddock, 
Edward M. Pecke, 
Alexander Shiras, 
Henry R. Smith, 
R. S. Smith, 
J. P. Spaulding, 
A. F. Steele, 
C. E. Swopc, 
J. P. Taylor, 



26 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Joseph II. Elsegood, A. Ten Broeck, 

"VYilliam F. Halsey, ^Y. P. Ten Broeck, 

Chandler Hare, C. W. Thomson, 

J.A.Harris,* A. E. Tortat, 

William Hommann, J. Townsend, 

G. P. Hopkins, H. E. Tschudy, 

Joseph Jacquet, E. M. Yan Deusen, 

Morris M. Jones, William White, 

B. B. Leacock, J. Woart. 
Edmund Leaf,* 

It is due to the gentlemen above named to say, 
that many of them would undoubtedly have signed 
the Protest, had they had the opportunity j and that, 
of those who might have felt some hesitation about 
signing it, there are probably not five, (and perhaps 
not one,) who do not as fully and cordially dissent 
from and condemn the sentiments of Bishop Hop- 
kins's letter, as does the Protest itself. It ought to 
be added that the Protest was originally intended 
for the Clergy of Philadelphia only ; but as several 
of the country Clergy were very desirous of append- 
ing their names, it was eventually concluded to leave 
it open to their signatures also. 

So much for the Protest ; so much for what it con- 
tained of " reviling, vilifying, calumny, vituperation, 
slander, insult and libel — false, bitter, gross, ground- 
less, scandalous, demented,'^ etc., etc. I repeat these 
words, because I intend to do what I can to give 
notoriety, if not respectability, to the beautiful and 
Christian terminology of Bishop Hopkins. Again, 
let the reader contrast the tone and spirit of the 

* Signatnrcs to the protest subsequently authorized. 



THE "PROTEST," AND ITS DEFENCE. 27 

Bishop's reply, and say which is most worthy of a 
servant of Jesus Christ. The signers of the Protest 
did not so much as enter into any formal expression 
of what they regarded as the sophistries and ex- 
travagances of the Bishop's letter; they simply 
declared their dissent from, and reprobation of, its 
doctrines and sentiments, and apparent aims. That 
they did not refrain from a formal exposure and 
refutation, because they were unequal to such a 
task, I shall endeavour to demonstrate in the next 
chapter. 



CHAPTBE II. 

THE "CHRISTIAN BISHOP's" LETTER, AND 
THE ANSWER. 

THE letter opens with the broad assertion that 
"the term 'servant' employed by our trans- 
lators of the Bible has the meaning of slave in the 
Hebrew and the Greek originals, as a general rule, 
where it stands alone." It does not clearly appear 
what is meant by standing alone. Strictly speaking, 
the term never stands alone. But if we take " stand- 
ing alone" to mean "without any adjective or other 
words accompanying it, tending to modify its mean- 
ing," the assertion above made is very wide of the 
truth. For the original word is applied not less 
freely and perhaps more frequently to the servants 
of God, of kings, &c., and to servants that were He- 
brews, than to bondmen that were foreigners. Yet 
j'^he servants of the Lord are not slaves, and the He- 
brew servants went out free at the end of six years, 
while the definition which in the letter is imme- 
diately given of slavery is, " servitude for life, de- 
scending to the offspring." Moreover, one may 
boldty assert that thcoriginal word translated " ser- 
vant" very rarely if ever means exactly what slave 
means in English. The ideas now by usage associated 
with this last word would not correspond to those 
connected with the original word. And finally, the 

28 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 29 

original word is a general term, and though it may 
sometimes include the specific sense of slave, it is 
ordinarily more accurately translated by our general 
term, servant, than it would be by the specific term, 
slave. The word meaning beast may include the ass 
in its signification, and in a particular case may be 
known to be applied specifically to an ass; and yet 
even then it is more accurate to translate a general 
term by its corresponding general term. Every ass 
is a beast, but every beast is not an ass. So every 
slave is a servant, but every servant is not a slave. 
It w^ould be a false translation, and a solecism be- 
sides, to say " a slave of the Lord,^' instead of " a 
servant of the Lord,'' or to say "the slaves of the 
king," instead of " the servants of the king." The 
original Hebrew word,* in its strict etymological 
signification, is even more general than "servant," 
for it means " labourer," and this etymology undoubt- 
edly modifies and softens the force of the word in 
all its applications. Still we should not propose to 
substitute " labourer" for " servant" in translating. 
Usage would again forbid it. But what we observe 
is that " servant" instead of being too weak a word 
to represent the original, is rather too strong. The 
pro-slavery cause will take nothing by sending us 
back from the English version to the original text. 

The letter proceeds to state that " this kind of 
bondage" — servitude for life, descending to the offspring, 
— " appears to have existed as an established institu- 

* It is true, the Greek word of the New Testament is stronger, 
meaning, etymologically, a hojidman. But the servant, or bond- 
man, of the New Testament, was one, at all events, who could 
have wife, children, property, and debts of his own. See Matt, 
xviii. 25. 

a* 



30 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

tion in all ages of the world, by the universal evi- 
dence of history, Avhether sacred or profane/^ 

But what evidence is there from history, " whether 
sacred or profane,^' that slavery '' existed in our 
world" for some two thousand years, that is, from 
Adam till the death of Noah, or till about the time 
of Abraham ? The " Christian Bishop" may have 
access to some history not generally known, or he 
may think that, in the first ages, the world had not 
become ours. But, in our view, those earliest ages 
are very important in the argument; for we may 
say to the advocates of slavery who argue from its 
permission and general prevalence, as our Saviour 
said to the Pharisees about divorcement, — " From 
the beginning it was not so." Of this the Christian 
Fathers were accustomed to make a strong point. 
"If any one ask," says St. Chrysostom, "whence 
came slavery into the world ? — for I know many who 
have desired to learn this, — I will tell him. Irisatia- 
hie avarice and envy are the parents of slavery; for Noahj 
Abel, and Seth, and their descendants, had no slaves. 
Sin hath begotten slavery, — then wars and battles, 
in which men were made captives." (Hom. ad Ephes. 
xxii.) And again : " There was no slave in the old 
times; for God, Avhen he made man, made him not 
bond but free. (Hom. in Laz. 6.) 

The Bishop admits that slavery ma}^ be a physical 
evil, but denies that slave-holding is a moral evil or 
a sin. But if enslavement is a physical evil, can a 
man, without moral evil, without committing sin, 
inflict this physical evil on his fellow man wantonly 
or for selfish ends? — for his own gratification, ease, 
or gain ? If it is, on the whole, really a means of 
greater good to the slave himself, it hardly deserves 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 81 

to be called a physical evil. And if it is inflicted 
with due authority and for the sincere purpose of 
securing this greater good, it certainly is not a sin ; 
but in this case it would be such an extraordinary 
kind of slavery that it would hardly deserve the 
name ; for it could scarcely be " servitude for life, 
descending to the offspring." The general question 
whether slave-holding is a sin, I shall reserve for a 
separate discussion further on. But what does the 
" Christian Bishop'' mean, when, in this connexion, 
he proclaims, " No blasphemy can be more unpar- 
donable than that which imputes sin or moral evil 
to the decrees of the Eternal Judge, who is alone 
perfect in wisdom, in knowledge, and in love V 
Does he mean that no blasphemy can be greater 
than that which calls slave-holding a sin ? That 
seems to be the simple English of his declaration, if 
it has any relevancy to the question in hand, or if 
there is any logical connexion in his train of thought. 
But we may presume the Bishop knows that no man, 
no Christian, who calls slave-holding a sin, means to 
charge the sin or the moral evil upon the Eternal 
Judge or upon his decrees. And has the Eternal 
Judge anywhere so decreed slave-holding as to make 
it the express duty of certain men to hold their fel- 
low men in bondage? — the duty, for example, of the 
Southerners to hold the poor negroes as " chattels 
personal ?" Or, if the Eternal Judge has decreed 
that negroes shall be so held, for reasons which seem 
good in the sight of infinite wisdom and love, does 
it follow that it is blasphemy to impute sin to any 
actions of men which fulfil the decrees of the Eternal 
Judge ? What actions of men are not in fulfilment 
of his decrees ? Is it blasphemy to impute sin to tho 



32 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

traitor Judas ? and to the cnicifiers of our Blessed 
Lord ? Yet " the Son of man indeed goeth as it is 
written of him, but woe to that man by whom the 
Son of man is betrayed ; good were it for that man 
if he had never been born." " Him being delivered 
b}^ the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of 
God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have cruci- 
fied and slain." Were our Blessed Lord and his 
Apostles, then, guilty of '' the most unpardonable 
blasphemy," when they thus impute sin to those who 
fulfilled the decrees of the Eternal Judge ? If that 
be what the " Christian Bishop" says, then let the 
blasphemy rebound upon his own head ; or if that 
be not his meaning, let him say — he is challenged to 
say — distinctly to say — to what his pompous charge 
of " unpardonable blasphemy" does apply. It cannot 
apply to those who directly charge God or his decrees 
with sin ; for there are none such to be found — cer- 
tainly none among his Christian brethren. It cannot 
apply to those who charge with sin the actions of 
men which are in fulfilment of God's decrees; for 
then it would reach to Christ and his Apostles, as 
just shown. To what, and to whom, then, does it 
apply? This is a serious point, and I insist that the 
Bishop should clear up the case, or disclaim and de- 
sist from the wholesale charges and insinuations 
against his opponents, of blasphemy, infidelity, and 
ungodliness, in which he so freely indulges. It is 
curious to see how the '' Christian Bishop," while he 
is ready to charge the word of God with approving 
and upholding the institution of slavery, still shrinks 
from acknowledging that he is bad enough, hard- 
hearted enough, to approve it himself He puts in 
his Sfliyo thus : — " If it were a matter to be deter- 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 3li 

mined by my personal sympathies, tastes, or feelings, 
I should be as ready as any man to condemn the in- 
stitution of slavery; for all my prejudices of educa- 
tion, habit, and social position, stand entirely opposed 
to it." Would it not be well for the Biphop here to 
clear up a few things for himself? Do his " S3^mpa- 
thies, tastes, and feelings," which lead to the con- 
demnation of slavery, arise from the better — the 
more benevolent and charitable — or from the worse, 
the more selfish part of his nature? And if from 
the former, was Christianity intended to repress or 
to encourage and cultivate our better and kindlier 
feelings? Again, when these feelings lead him to 
condemn slavery, is it not from viewing it as an evil 
and a wrong ? Could he be inclined to condemn what 
he really regarded, as he afterwards professes to 
regard slavery, as a blessing, a good, a thing well- 
pleasing to God ? Were the education and habits he 
refers to, derived from Christian or from ungodly 
associations and influences ? And finally, if he would 
leave all special pleading and chopjDing of logic aside, 
does not his inmost soul, and do not the whole tenor 
and spirit of the Word of God and the Blessed Gospel 
of Christ cry out against the institution of Slavery ? 
Shall it be indeed necessary for a " Christian Bishop" 
to school down his humane instincts and sympathies, 
in order to bring them to a level with those of Jesus 
Christ? 

The prediction by Noah of the servitude of Canaan, 
— or "the curse of Ham," as it is commonly called 
by the advocates of slavery, who are accustomed to 
make it the corner-stone of their argument, — is of 
course put in the front part of this defence of the 
peculiar institution. And this, from the general 



34 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

drift of the Bishop's reasoning, would seem to be the 
awful " decree of the Eternal Judge" above referred 
to. But is it seriously pretended that whatever is 
^predicted is therefore right? "In the last days," 
says St. Paul, " perilous times shall come, for men 
shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, 
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthank- 
ful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, 
false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those 
that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of 
pleasures more than lovers of God ; having a form 
of godliness, but denying the power thereof'^ Are, 
therefore, selfishness, cupidity, boasting, pride, blas- 
phemy, rebellion, ingratitude, impurity, treating one's 
own children as mere chattels, perjury, satanic false- 
hood, looseness and lust, ferociousness, spite, treason, 
headlong obstinacy, puffed-up self-will, a loud claim 
of true churchmanship, of special orthodoxy and 
piety, with a denial of the practical power and ap- 
plication of Christianity; — are these all right? If 
so, this is a short method to justify the Southern 
rebellion from Scripture, without going all the way 
round through a defence of the institution of slavery. 
But again, it was predicted that the Israelites 
should be enslaved and evil-entreated in Egypt four 
hundred years. Were the Egyptians therefore justified 
in holding them in bondage ? " The Eternal Judge,'' 
notwithstanding his antecedent decree and prediction, 
seems to have decided otherwise ; " for the nation to 
whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said 
God.'' Perhaps, it may be said, it is not the mere 
prediction of the servitude of Canaan that is relied 
upon, but the prediction of that servitude as a just 
punishment. Canaan was punished, and, I doubt not. 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 35 

justly punished, by having denounced to him the 
evil that should fall on his posterity ; and Ham was 
punished in the same way, for Canaan's posterity 
w^ere also his j^osterity, and the punishment upon his 
posterity, when it was inflicted, being inflicted, as 
the Bishop says, for the sins of those who suffered 
it, and not for the sins of their ancestors, was doubt- 
less a just punishment. But the justice of a punish- 
ment does not, of course, justify those who inflict it; 
and that, too, without regard to the motives from 
which they inflict it. If a man has committed mur- 
der, it is just that he should suffer capital punish- 
ment ; but I am not, therefore justified in inflicting 
that punishment, unless I have specific authority 
thereto; — to inflict it without that authority would 
be murder. And still worse would be the moral 
character of my act if, — instead of inflicting it with 
due authority and with deep regret, and a simple, 
honest view to the execution of justice, — I should 
inflict it from motives of personal vindictiveness, or 
to satisfy some old grudge, or for the gratification 
of avarice or lust. The Israelites had specific au- 
thority for their treatment of the Canaanites, and 
so far as they carried this authority into effect from 
motives of obedience to {he Divine commands, they 
were doubtless not only justifiable, but commenda- 
ble. But who else has received specific authority 
for inflicting punishment upon the Canaanites? 
Have the Southern slaveholders received a special 
Divine precept to hold the Eegroes in bondage? 
Can such a precept to them be inferred from Noah's 
prophecy, or the " curse of Ham," or whatever else 
you may please to call it ? But this curse, accord- 
ing to St. Chrysostom, " was removed when Christ 



86 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

appeared/' (Horn, in 1 Cor. XL.) If so, — and it 
would seem plain enough from the very nature of 
Christianity, that it is so, — then the whole fabric 
built upon "the curse of Ham," vanishes into thin 
air at once. And, in any event, several difficult 
things would have to be established in order to make 
out from it any justification of modern Negro 
Slavery. It would be necessary to show, 1st. That 
the Negroes are descended from Ham; 2d. Either 
that the curse upon Canaan's posterity was a curse 
also upon the posterity of Cush, Mizraim and the 
other sons of Ham, or that the Negroes are des- 
cended from Canaan; 3d. That the Southerners 
have a special Divine precept to execute the curse ; 
and 4th. That the poor Negroes are sinners above 
all other races of men, because they suffer such 
things. The first point, though it cannot be proved, 
may be easily granted. The second, the Christian 
Bishop has attempted to establish subsequently in 
his book, — with what success we shall see in the 
proper place. The third, of course, can never be 
made out without some new revelation; and the 
fourth is contrary to the express teaching of Jesus 
Christ. Even granting the second point as well as 
the first, therefore, the argument in justification of 
modern Negro Slavery from " the curse of Ham," 
fails entirely; indeed, is one of the most egregious 
pieces of moonshine logic that was ever invented. 
But I shall expect to show that the second point is 
as baseless as the rest, and, if so, the very moonshine 
itself will utterly fade and disappear. So, farewell 
for the present to "the curse of Ham." 

Next, it is alleged that Abraham had slaves, and 
that in his case "slavery was sanctioned by the 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 37 

Deity." " But ye say that Abraham had slaves/' 
— says St. Chrysostom, (Horn, ad Eph. XXIII.) — 
" Yea, but he treated them not as slaves.^' So it 
seems this is an old pro-slavery argument ; but it is 
observable that St. Chrysostom, instead of adopting 
it and urging it, like our " Christian Bishop," in de- 
fence of Slavery, places himself on the opposite side, 
and endeavours to parry its force, — and does so 
effectually ; for, if there were no slavery now but 
such as existed in the household of the patriarch 
Abraham, and if the times and circumstances now, 
were similar to those in which he lived, there would 
be little reason to find fault with such domestic ser- 
vices. But that even this servitude, such as it was, 
was " sanctioned by the Deity," does not at all ap- 
pear, any more than that Abraham's polygamy or 
concubinage was sanctioned by the Deity. And 
even if it were sanctioned in this case, the desired 
inference could not be made from it to Southern 
Slaveholders ; unless we are at liberty to infer, from 
the praise that is bestowed upon Jael, the wife of 
Ilcber, for her killing of Sisera, that the treacher- 
ous murder of a confiding guest is now and always 
justifiable, and laudable. The Bishop's sage con- 
clusion from the case of Abraham and Hagar is wor- 
thy of passing recognition. It is, that the present 
rebellion and civil war are chargeable upon '' philan- 
thropists, who i)rofess to believe the Bible." Is this 
meddling with politics ? Is this encouraging the 
Southern rebels ? 

The third proof alleged to sliow " that slavery was 
authorized by the Almighty," is, the last of the ten 
commandments : " Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- 
bor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife 



38 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

nor Ilis man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his 
ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's/' 
" There,'' says the advocate of slavery, '' you see that 
servants are recognized as property, side by side with 
houses and oxen and asses." " J^ay,'' replies the 
anti-slavery man, " but if so, then wives are recog- 
nized as pro]3erty in the same sense/' '' True," says 
the " Christian Bishop," not at all disconcerted by 
the redicctio ad absurdum, " true, and it would be well 
for wives to remember it, and not take umbrage at 
the law which places them in the same sentence with 
the slave, and even the house and the cattle." I 
should have considered it an insult to the intellierence 

o 

of my readers to expose this play upon the word 
property, had it not been gravely adoj^ted and used 
by a person of such dignity and respectability. Pro- 
perty is commonly understood as referring to what 
may be bought and sold, transferred and inherited, 
to what is regarded as a mere passive means to serve 
its owner's ends. And the real question is whether 
men can rightly be the property of other men in this 
sense, — whether they can be chattels personal, — and 
whether this commandment recognizes them as such, 
because it puts them with oxen and houses. But the 
word property may undoubtedly be used in various 
other senses. The wife may be the property of the 
husband, and so is the husband the property of the 
wife. The servant may be the property of the mas- 
ter, and so is the master the property of the servant. 
My children are my propertj^, my parents are my 
property, my country is my property, my God is my 
property -, — but they are not therefore my slaves, — 
things, — chattels personal. The case is simply this: 
Lhe anti-slavery man places the man-servant and the 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 39 

maid-servant in the same category with the wife; 
the pro-slavery man places them on a level with the 
ox and the ass; the " Christian Bishop" places wife, 
servant, ox, ass, and all, on one common level. Here 
are the three interpretations. Which is right ? Are 
wives and servants to be reckoned as persons or as 
things? Which was the intention of the law-giver? 
" But,'' says the Bishop, " whatever, whether person 
or thing, the law appropriates to an individual, be- 
comes of necessity his property." If by '' the law,'' 
here, he means this law, the law of God, we have 
already answered him. If he means the laxo of the 
land, ^\i\\ he maintain that the Almighty recognizes 
as rightful property whatever the law of the land 
recognizes as such, and in the same sense and degree 
in which that law recognizes it as such ? Is it always 
right for me to hold and retain as my property w^hat- 
ever the law of the land secures to me as such, — for 
example, — by the statute of limitations ? Can there 
be no unrighteous, no oppressive laws ? The Israel- 
ites were held in bondage in Egypt, by the laws of 
Egypt. Was it therefore all right ? As the laws of 
Egypt appropriated them to the king or to some other 
individual, were they therefore his rightful propeHy — 
his " chattels personal ?" AYhatever else is meant by 
man-servant and maid-servant in the commandment, 
the terms undoubtedly included the Hebrew servants 
who served for a term of years as a kind of appren- 
tices. The same class of servants exist now, and 
may rightfully exist always. And we are forbidden 
to covet these from our neighbor. As to slaves, anti- 
slavery men cannot covet them from their neighbors, 
cannot desire them as their own property. It is the 
pro-slavery man and he alone, Avho is liable to violate 



40 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

tho tenth commandment in this regard ; or, at least, 
there is only one other party who can be supposed 
to violate it — and that is tlie slave himself. Will 
tho " Christian Bishop" say that the poor slave is, 
in this commandment, forbidden to sigh for or even 
to desire his freedom ? Will he say that all other 
men arc forbidden to cherish any such desire in be- 
half of the slave? lie elsewhere acknowledges that 
he desires the freedom of the slaves ; — is he therefore 
violating the tenth commandment? 

His fourth argument is drawn from the express pro- 
visions of the law of Moses in regard to the "separa- 
tion of husband and wife,'' and to the "punishment of 
slaves." He cites, "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six 
years shall he serve; and in the seventh he shall go free 
for nothing. If he came in by himself he shall go 
out by himself; if he were married, then his wife 
shall go out with him. If his master have given him 
a wife, and slic have borne him sons or daughters, 
the wife and her children shall be her master's, and 
he shall go out by himself." (Ex. xxi. 4-G.) He then 
adds, " Here we see that the separation of husband 
and wife is positively directed by divine command." 
]jut is this really so? Is it not rather a mere ar- 
rangement that when a man had a female servant 
who was bound to him for a definite or an indefinite 
period, he was not to bo deprived or curtailed of her 
services by her being married to one of his servants, 
whose term of service might expire before hers? If 
the master chose to make a different arrangement 
with his servant before the marriage, or to consent 
to a difl'erent course afterwards, undoubtcdl}^ he was 
at liberty to do so. But if tho master chose not to 
waive his legal rights, and the servant insisted upon 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 41 



marrying tho bondmaid, ho did it with his eyes open, 
and must abide the consequences. The Rabbins de- 
clare that this w^as not a case of solemn marriage — 
that the woman became not a Avife, but a mere con- 
cubine ; for the children of the proper Avifc alwaj'S 
followed the condition of the father. Pnit be tliis as 
it may, this law does not ordain the separation of 
husband and wHfe; for though the husband went out 
free alone, there was nothing in the law to hinder 
his living as near his wife, and having as much con- 
nexion with her afterwards, as is customary among 
the negro slaves, even before any such separation 
of husband and wife as is complained of. Besides, 
the man was not sold to some distant plantation, 
"and forced to go and leave his wife behind ; he could 
remain with her if he chose; only he must continue 
to share her condition with her. How, then, was 
the " separation of husband and wife positively com- 
manded?'' Does the Bishop mean that this regula- 
tion of the Mosaic code shows that there is no sin, 
no moral wrong, in the separation of husband and 
wife, as it is often forced upon the negro slaves in 
the Southern States? Or does he mean that tho 
system of concubinage or something worse and more 
bestial, which is said to be there established among 
the slaves, is authorized and sanctioned by the law 
of God ? So it would seem. " With this Jaw before 
his eyes," he exclaims, " what Christian can believe 
that the Almighty attached immorality or sin to tho 
condition of slavery V Why not say at once, " to tho 
separation of husbands and wives," for that is the 
specific thing which he says is "positively directed" 
in this case ? And what if we should answer to his 
whole argument, " For the hardness of your hearts 
4-x- 



42 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Moses wrote you this precept ?" Did the Almighty 
attach immorality or .sin to the divorce which he 
allowed and regulated ? As to the Mosaic regulations 
in regard to the treatment of servants, there are 
three : 1st, " If a man smite his servant or his maid 
with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be 
surely punished/' That is, if under pretence of 
chastising his servant, he kill him, he shall, as the 
Eabbins have interpreted, be punished as a murderer 
— be put to death. And the Eabbins are plainly 
right; for the law for the punishment of murder is 
universal and absolute ; it makes no distinction be- 
tween bond and free. " For blood, it defileth the 
land, and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood 
that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that 
shed it." 2d, " If a man smite out the eye or the 
tooth of his servant, the servant shall go free for 
the eye or the tooth's sake.'' Which of the Southern 
States has adopted so humane a rule as this ? 3d, 
" If the servant continue a day or two after being 
chastised by his master, and then die, the master 
shall not be punished — he is his money." That is, says 
the Bishop, " the loss of his property was held to be 
a sufficient penalty." But, if that were so, why not 
also in the first case as well as in this ? The whole 
distinction turns upon the question of the intent to 
kill. If the circumstances are such as to imply that 
intention, the murderer shall be punished — if not, 
not; and the fact that the servant is his master's 
money, added to the servant's surviving some time 
after the chastisement, is held a sufficient guaranty 
that the intention to kill did not exist. It is a rule 
of evidence, not a measure of penalty. 

The fifth argument in defence of slavery is drawn 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 43 

from the alleged fact that the regulations of the 
Mosaic law in regard to the Jubilee did not apply to 
foreigners who were held in bondage ; since the 
Israelites are expressly authorized to hold them as 
"their bondmen forever." And this construction of 
the law of the Jubilee is said to have been " inva- 
riably sanctioned by the Doctors of the Jewish law, 
and every respectable Christian commentator." This 
last statement is a little too strong, for not to men- 
tion many respectable Christian commentators, Sal- 
vador, one of the most learned modern Jewish doc- 
tors, maintains the oj^posite view. The Hebrew 
servant who had submitted to have his ear bored, 
was to be a " bondman forever;" and yet most of the 
Jewish doctors agree that he was to recover his free- 
dom at the Jubilee. If so, to be a " bondman for- 
ever" was not inconsistent with going out at the 
Jubilee. The terms of the Jubilee proclamation are 
universal and absolute — "liberty throughout the 
land, to all the inhabitants thereof.'^ 

This certainly might be fairly interpreted as ap- 
pl}' ing to slaves, if it applied to anybody — no excep- 
tions are made of foreign residents or anybody else. 
But I am not disposed to insist on this interpreta- 
tion. The w^eight of authority is 2-)robably the other 
way. I only insist that it is an open question. And 
even supposing the other interpretation to be the 
true one, what does the advocate of modern slavery 
gain by it ? He must admit that the Israelites were 
forbidden to make slaves of their brethren; and 
those of them whom they might hold, as servants, 
they were to treat with mildness and release at the 
end of six years. Even though it should be admitted 
then, that they were allowed to have " bondmen of 



44 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

the nations that were round about them/* and to 
retain them absolutely without limitation of time — 
what is that to us Christians ? Are not all men our 
brethren now ? Has any particular nation or race 
now the peculiar privileges of the ancient chosen 
people ? Does not all the doctrine of Christ declare, 
and does not every Christian heart respond, that the 
measure of kindness which Hebrew owed to Hebrew 
is not too great for every Christian to pay to all his 
fellow men of whatever nation, race or clime? 

As to the Mosaic regulation forbidding the rendi- 
tion of fugitive slaves, it is alleged that it applies 
only to slaves escaping /rom/ore(7?i 7nasters. But this 
is not so perfectly clear; for the terms of the law 
are entirely general ; and on the other hand there is 
no law expressly requiring the rendition of fugitive 
slaves escaping from Hebrew masters ; and if it had 
been intended that these should be restored, it would 
seem natural to have made such an exception to the 
law actually enunciated. The most probable solution 
would seem to be that the law refers, not to ordinary 
runaways, but to slaves escaping, — escaping for their 
lives, — from the harsh treatment, or murderous as- 
saults, or threats, of their masters. Or, if the law 
be understood as referring exclusively to slaves 
escaping from foreign masters, the reason would 
still be similar — viz., they were not to be restored 
on account of the harsh treatment and reckless 
punishment to which they were liable among people 
over whose laws and usages the Hebrew legislation had no 
control; and thus this law would be on the whole a 
precedent for not returning escaped slaves to States — 
whether considered in any other relation as foreign 
or domestic — in respect to whose slave-code we could 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 45 

exercise no influence and have no voice. If the slaves 
are subjected to cruel treatment, under cruel and in- 
human laws, this law would furnish a precedent for 
affording them an asylum — unless we are bound by 
express stipulations to the contrary; and its spirit 
would go against entering into or retaining such 
stipulations. 

Then comes the argument from the ISTew Testa- 
ment, which amounts to this : that slavery existed 
in the time of our Saviour, but he " did not allude 
TO IT AT all;'^ and that his Apostles taught that 
servants should be '' obedient to their masters,^' and 
that masters should '' give unto their servants that 
which is just and equal." Hence, as our Lord did 
not expressly repeal the old law, it is inferred that 
the regulations of the Mosaic code in respect t-o sla- 
very remain in full force as a norma of what is right 
under all circumstances; and the precepts of the 
Apostles recognize and regulate slavery as an allowed 
and uncondemned institution. But are all the pre- 
cepts and directions, which were given to the chosen 
people, and were not expressly repealed by our Lord, 
valid as a standard of right for modern Christian 
nations ? Take for example the laws of war con- 
tained in Deut. xx. 10-16. " When thou comest nigh 
unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace 
unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of 
peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all 
the people that is found therein shall be tributaries 
unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will 
make no peace with thee, but will war against thee, 
then thou shalt besiege it ; and when the Lord thy 
God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt 
smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; 



40 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, 
and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, 
shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the 
spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath 
given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities 
which are very far off from thee, which are not of 
the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these 
people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for 
an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that 
breatheth.'' 

JSTow here is an express and solemn command, ^yhich 
was never repealed by our Blessed Lord. And the 
case is stronger than that of slavery ; for it will not 
be pretended that the Israelites were positwely com- 
manded, that it was made their bounden duty, to hold 
slaves; it can be maintained only that they were 
allowed to do so. Is it, therefore, right for modern 
Christian nations to wage war in this way ? And 
would it be " blasphemy" to maintain the contrary ? 
Neither our Saviour nor his Apostles have expressly 
prohibited Polygamy, which is recognized and regu- 
lated in the law of Moses (see Ex. xxi. 10 ; Lev. xviii. 
16, 18; XX. 14; Deut. xxv. 5, 7, 9, &c.) ; is polygamy 
therefore right ? Was divorce, except for one cause, 
right before our Saviour forbade it ? Did he forbid 
it because it is wrong ? or is it wrong because he 
forbade iti' The advocates of slavery are welcome 
to all the countenance they can get from our Sa- 
viour's silence, if they will carry out the spirit of his 
positive teaching of love and good will to all men, — a 
spirit before which slavery can make but a brief 
stand. 

Nothing can be fairly inferred in favour of slavery 
from those precepts of the apostles which req^uire 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 47 

servants to be submissive and obedient to their mas- 
ters, for this is required as a matter of suffering and 
Christian patience, after the example of Him, who, 
when he was reviled, reviled not again, when ho 
suffered he threatened not. (See 1 Peter ii. 18-24.) 
From the command to obey magistrates it does not 
follow that the tyranny of Tiberius and Nero was 
sanctioned. From the command, " if a man smite 
thee on the one cheek offer also the other,^^ we may 
not infer that a man is justified in smiting thee on 
one or both cheeks ; or that a third person would be 
justified, — even though a " Christian Bishop," — in 
compelling thee to submit to the infliction. And as to 
the precept to masters — " give unto your servants 
that which is just and equal — or rather that which 
is just, and equality — knowing that ye also have a 
master in heaven," ''neither is there respect of per- 
sons with him :" — if this precept were carried out 
honestly and fully, how long would slavery stand 
before it? Those masters are presumed to know 
what is required by justice and equality from their 
own enlightened reason and Christian conscience — 
as our Lord said to the Pharisees, " wherefore of 
your own selves judge ye not what is right :" — and 
not by blunting their moral sensibilities, and entan- 
gling their consciences with perverse interpretations 
and misapplications of a Divinely given but now 
obsolete code of civil regulations. Is it not plain 
that, among other things, "justice and equality" 
would require masters to desire and seek, by intel- 
lectual, moral, and religious culture, to prepare their 
servants for freedom, and when so prepared, gladly 
and willingly to emancipate them ? Could a sense 
of justice and equality allow them to retain them as 



48 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. ^ 

slaves, as " chattels personal," and that with a view 
and purpose of perpetuating their bondage and that 
of their children and children's children, at all 
hazards ? 

Eut St. Paul, it is said, sent back Onesimus, a 
fumtive slave, to his master, Philemon. This is 
uniformly the grand climax of the pro-slavery argu- 
ment from the Eible, as the " curse of Ham" is its 
invariable foundation stone. Yes, St. Paul sent 
Onesimus back to Philemon, with these words : — 
'' Eeceive him that is mine own bowels . . . receive 
him forever, not now as a servant, but above a ser- 
vant, a brother beloved .... receive him as myself 
.... Having confidence in thy obedience I have 
written unto thee knowing that thou wilt also do 
more than I say." — Is it supposable that Philemon 
should have retained Onesimus as a slave, as a 
" chattel personal," after such a letter as that? Ob- 
serve, he was to receive him, " not now as a servant, 
but above a servant, a brother beloved." — I take the 
words just as they stand, in their simple force, with- 
out any gloss, or paraphrase, or emendation, — he 
was to receive him as the Apostle himself. Would ho 
receive the Apostle as a slave, as a *' chattel per- 
sonal," to be condemned to ignorance, and held in 
perpetual bondage ? But as if to clench the point, 
the Apostle adds, " I know that thou wilt do more 
than I say;" and what could that more be, which the 
Apostle insinuates, but to emancipate the slave ? It 
appears from ecclesiastical tradition that Philemon 
did emancipate Onesimus; for the latter is subse- 
quently spoken of as Bishop of one of the churches. 
Why the advocates of slavery should have such a 
fancy for the Epistle to Philemon, it is indeed diffi- 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 49 

cult to comprehend. The more frequently parallel 
cases should occur in these times, the better. As 
often as a Philemon can be found as a master, by all 
means let his fugitive slaves be returned to him, to 
be treated as St. Paul requested that Onesimus should 
be treated; — it will not delay the progress of eman- 
cipation. And let the ministers of Christ among 
slave-holders collect the slaves together as often as 
they can, and present them to their masters with 
these words : " Sir, receive these poor slaves that are 
mine own bowels, receive them forever, not now as 
servants, but above servants, as brethren beloved, 
receive them as myself In saying this I have confi- 
dence in you that you will also do more than I say." 
Or let those ministers take the slaves one by one, 
as, upon sufficient instruction, and evidence of piety, 
they may be admitted to the Holy Communion, and 
present them to their masters with that address. 
Surely it is enough that the slaves should be made 
Christians; it is not necessary that they should run 
away and rob their masters, in order to have a claim 
to such a commendation. AYhat a strange sermon 
this would be to the ears of Southern masters ! What 
a gospel to the poor slaves ! Let it be often preached, 
the oftener the better. I only fear that such church 
communion would be voted a nuisance, and such 
preaching would be silenced, and that the Epistle to 
Philemon would soon be regarded by the abettors 
of chattelism and perpetual slavery as an " incen- 
diary document.'^ 

Before the abolition of slavery in the British West 
Indies, it was made a charge against a Weslcyan 
missionary that he had read an inflammatory chap- 
ter of the Bible to his cona'rc'xation. 



50 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

The denunciation of anti-slavery preachers as per- 
sons " calling themselves Christians," and the charge 
against the " numerous and respectable friends of 
this popular delusion" that they are " not accus- 
tomed to study the Bible half as much as they read 
the newspapers, the novel, and the magazine/' — is 
of course an argument unanswerable. As to the 
alleged duty of Christian ministers to rebuke the 
anti-slavery movement and preach down the war, it 
is plain that this would be political preaching and 
introducing slavery into the pulpit, as much as 
preaching on the other side would be ; and the Bishop 
condescends not to "judge" those who take, in this 
matter, a different view from himself; though he 
hesitates not to represent them as " strangely re- 
gardless of their highest obligations." 

The " Christian Bishop" next proceeds to carp at 
the doctrines of the Declaration of American Inde- 
pendence. To this he devotes a large part of his 
letter, which furnishes one of the best specimens, 
perhaps, of elaborate special pleading contained in 
his whole book. It is fitting that American freemen 
should know that he who would make chattel-sla- 
very a Divine Institution and pervert the word of 
God and the authority of Jesus Christ and his apos- 
tles to its support, scouts at the doctrines and politi- 
cal opinions of the Fathers of the American Eepub- 
lic, and pronounces the " self-evident truths" which 
are placed at the head of the Declaratien of Inde- 
pendence to be in his judgment " no truths at all." 
I shall not folioAV him at present through all his 
argument, as the subject will come up again in its 
proper place. A few words here must suffice. He 
gives an essay of considerable rhetorical merit rang- 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. Ol 

ing through heaven and earth and sea and sky, and 
all the kingdoms of nature, to show the wonderful 
variety and diversity in the Creator's works. The 
thina* is well done. But what has it to do with the 
Declaration of Independence? He reminds us that 
" all men are born unequal in body, in mind, in social 
privileges. Their intellectual faculties are unequal. 
Their education is unequal. Their associations are 
unequal. Their opportunities are unequal." But 
what has all this to do with the Declaration ? Who 
ever supposed the authors of the Declaration such 
downright fools as to assert that there was no va- 
riety in Nature's works, or that all men were born 
equal in the respects just named ? But are we to 
suppose, therefore, that they were raving, and had 
no meaning at all ? If the Bishop had taken as much 
pains to show what, as reasonable and intelligent 
men, they probably did mean, as he has to show w^hat 
they could not have meant without the most egre- 
gious stupidity, he would have performed the more 
appropriate office of a critic. Suppose that when 
they proclaimed and laid at the very foundation of 
our American Commonwealth, '' the self-evident 
truths, that all men are created equal; that they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights; that among those are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness;" — suppose, I say, they meant, 
that all men are created equally men — men, not 
brutes, persons, not things, — equally moral beings, 
beings capable of and possessing rights; that these 
rights inhere in their very nature, and though capa- 
ble of being politically forfeited by personal fault, 
yet incapable of being transferred to another, or in 
idea annihilated ; that, by virtue of their very hu- 



52 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

manity, all men have equally the rights of personal 
security, of personal liberty, of marriage, of property, 
of seeking happiness in the free and full development 
of their moral being : — in short, just this, that human 
slavery is contrary to nature, and to the design of the 
Creator of manldnd? Would this be absurd? Some- 
thing like this they probably did mean ; and when 
the /acf5 of the well known inequalities, political and 
social, which actually exist among mankind, are set 
forth by the Bishop to show that their doctrine is 
false, he entirely misses the mark. They were not 
dealing with the visible facts, but with fundamen.tal 
ideas. And when the Bishop would suggest that the 
actual facts are the best proof of the original design, 
he would use the word design in a peculiar predesti- 
narian sense. Man was designed for holiness and 
happiness, Avhether he actually attains them or not. 
The seeds of j)lants may actually perish or he de- 
stroyed in vaTious ways, but if we examine their 
construction, we shall find that each one, in its very 
constitution, was designed to produce a new plant 
after its kind. 

But, says the Bishop, " since the fall, men have no 
rights to claim at the hands of their Creator." And Avhat 
of that ? AVho ever said they had ? If he really 
thinks that the authors of the Declaration meant to 
make such claims, meant to say that men have an 
"unalienable right" to claim "life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness," at the hands of their Creator, 
he must be even vastly more stupid than he supposes 
those authors to have been. I shall not follow his 
example so far as to charge such stupidity upon him. 
But unless he is amenable to that charge, he must 
mean, and it is to be presumed he does mean, that 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 53 

fallen men have, by virtue of their humanity, no 
mutual rights, no rights in relation to one another, 
no rights as men in distinction from brutes, as per- 
sons in distinction from things, no rights which as 
brethren they are bound to respect in one another, 
no rights which are not the creature of mere might, of 
the purely arbitrary enactments of positive law — in short, 
no rights at all in any true and proper sense. For, 
unless there are natural rights of 7nan, there can be 
no positive rights. There is nothing to make them out 
of; in that case the very idea of rights is wanting ; 
they could no more be created by positive enactment 
for vian, than they could /or brutes. Wherever there 
is a rational and moral nature, there are also of ne- 
cessity natural rights. 

The " Christian Bishop" seems to have a special 
spite, and very naturally from his position, — against 
the so-called natural rights of man. According to him, 
the fathers and founders of American Freedom either 
did not know what they meant, or the doctrines of 
their famous Declaration were all wrono-. And con- 
scquently the American Ecvolution was all wrong in 
principle and unchristian from beginning to end. For 
the authors of the Declaration certainly apj)ealed 
for justification to the rights of man, — appealed to 
them, just like Infidels and Atheists, as the Bishop 
would say, — and, without admitting such an appeal, 
no justification of their course can be found, but on 
their heads must rest all tlie blood that was shed, 
and all the misery that was borne, during those 
seven years of a fratricidal or parricidal war, — for 
"fallen man has no rights" to claim — still less to 
fight for. At the successful close of the Eevolution, 
the Continental Congress, in a solemn address to the 
5* 



54 S O U T II E R N S L A V E RY. 

people, uttered the following declaration : " Let it 
be remembered that it has ever been the pride and 
boast of America that the rights for which she has con- 
tended loere the rights of human nature. By the blessing 
of the Author of those rights, they have prevailed over 
all opposition, and form the basis of thirteen inde- 
pendent States." 

An effort is made to attach odium to the doctrine 
of the natural rights of man, by connecting with it 
all the excesses of the French Eevolutionists. This 
procedure is characteristic of the " Christian Bishop's'* 
logic. But is Christianity chargeable with all the 
crimes and cruelties that have been committed in 
her name ? If the doctrine of natural rights and 
freedom and equality is liable to abuse and extrava- 
gance, will any abuse of. it lead to worse conse- 
quences than w^U follow from its rejection ? If from 
a love of freedom men may be led into excesses, 
would not its eradication from their minds end in 
their utter debasement and degradation ? Does not 
Christianity teach men that it is a beautiful thing 
to hQ free? free in the highest sense; — but that high- 
est sense is understood only as illustrated by the 
lower. And does not Christianity teach that all men 
are equal in the sight of God ? Is equality then such 
a dangerous or such an absurd idea ? They certainly 
are not all equally tall, equally strong, equally 
healthy, equally intellectual, equally wise, equally 
rich, equally powerful, equall}^ t'^PPy? iii bis sight. 
In what sense are they then equal before him, con- 
sistently with the vast variety and diversity of his 
works? " God is no respecter of persons.'' 

But, says the letter, "the Revolution produced no 
effect on the institution of slavery." Let Benjamin 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 55 

Franklin, and the Legislature of Pennsylvania who 
abolished slavery in 1780, answer that allegation. 
The preamble to that act of emancipation — in a 
somewhat abridged form, and as quoted by the Hon. 
John Sergeant, in his speech on the Missouri ques- 
tion, runs thus : — 

" When we contemplate our abhorrence of that 
condition, to which the arms and tyranny of Great 
Britain were exerted to reduce us, when we look on 
the variety of dangers to which we have been ex- 
posed, and deliverances wrought, when even hope 
and fortitude have become unequal to the conflict, 
we conceive it to be our duty, and rejoice that it is 
in our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to 
others which hath been extended to us, to add one 
more step to universal civilization, by removing, as 
much as possible, the sorrows of those w^ho have 
lived in undeserved bondage. Weaned by a long 
course of experience from those narrow prejudices 
and partialities we had imbibed, we conceive our- 
selves, at this particular period, called upon, by the 
blessings we have received, to manifest the sincerity 
of our profession. In justice, therefore, to persons 
who, having no prospect before them, whereon they 
ma}^ rest their sorrows and their hopes, have no rea- 
sonable inducement to render that service to society 
w^hich otherwise they might; and also, in grateful 
commemoration of our own happy deliverance from 
that state of unconditional submission to wliich wo 
were doomed b}^ the tyranny of Britain — Be it en- 
acted, that no child born hereafter shall be a slave, 
&c.'' 

Did the Eevolution, then, "produce no effect on 
the institution of slavery?" 



56 S U T n E R N S L A V E R Y. 

Those beautiful words seem to me to be a sort of 
quiet, gentle refutation of the Bishop's whole book. 
When they are read, I confess I do not envy the man 
who can feel more sympathy with his harsh Draco- 
nian defence of slavery than with those humane, 
grateful, and truly Christian sentiments. I do not 
env3^ the Christian who can meet them with the cry 
of "Infidelity,'^ "Atheism,^' "rebellion against the 
authority of the Almighty,'' " blasphemy against the 
decrees of the Eternal Judge," or can cast in the 
teeth of that abolition Legislature the shout of 
" liberty, equality, fraternity," as made by the god- 
less revolutionists of France. 

But the " Christian Bishop" insists that the " negro 
race were not included in the Declaration." If so, 
its authors took a very singular way of leaving them 
out. " We hold these truths to be self-evident that 
all men are created equal," &c. If the Bishop has 
any proof that the authors of the Declaration denied 
that negroes are men, let him bring it forward. 
Until that is done it must be plain that they are in- 
cluded in the proposition ; and this is said not merely 
in view of its grammatical construction, but in virtue 
of a logical necessity; for, how could such a propo- 
sition be " self-evident," unless it were universal, 
founded in the very nature of man as man ? The 
" Christian Bishop" endeavours to prove that " the 
signers of the Declaration did not take the ne^rroes 
into the account at all," because they held slaves 
themselves, and continued to hold them to the end 
of their lives. This is a question of consistency which 
he may settle with those signers as best he can. But 
as to the inference he makes from their conduct, one 
might as well say, since they continued to use pro- 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 57 



fane oaths, they did not believe profane swearing is 
a sin, or that since every Christian violates God's 
commands from day to day, therefore no Christian 
believes such violation to be wrong. Meantime 
abundant positive evidence from their own language, 
some of which I may hereafter produce, may be 
brought to show that Franklin, Jefferson, Washing- 
ton, Madison, and most of the leading men of those 
times, from both N'orth and South, believed negro 
slavery to be an injustice and a wrong. 

The Declaration, so far from being, as the Bishop 
would represent it, a brutum fulmen, not only mean- 
ingless or false at that time, but now quite obsolete 
and null, is rather the doctrinal principle and the 
historical basis on which our Constitution and the 
whole frame of our government rest. True, it is 
not a statute ; it has no direct legal force ; but it em- 
bodies the fundamental ideas of the framers of our 
political fabric, and furnishes the key for the inter- 
pretation of their subsequent language. When, there- 
fore, in the Preamble to the Constitution, they say, 
" We the people of the United States," the " we" cer- 
tainly includes the Free blacks, for they were em- 
braced in the free population, to be represented in 
Congress, and they continued to vote even in North 
Carolina, till the year 1832.* JSTor is there any reason 

* I have found the following statements made on good autho- 
rity ; but I have not had an opportunity to verify their accuracy 
in all particulars : 

By reference to the Constitutions of New York, New Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and North 
Carolina, formed before the date of the Constitution of the United 
States, and in force at its adoption, and also to the Constitutions 
of Georgia and Pennsylvania, formed soon afterwards, it appears 



58 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

to suppose that it does not also include the slaves 
prospectively; for it is notorious that the framers 
of the Constitution generally presumed that slavery 
was rapidly dying out — an expectation which would 
prohably have been verified but for the invention of 
the Cotton Gin. To suppose that " we the people of 
the United States" means only those who have a 
right to vote, is preposterous ; for when the Preamble 
goes on to say — " to secure the blessings of liberty 
to ourselves and our posterity" — is it possible it 
should mean that the blessings of liberty were to be 
secured only to voters ? What would an Englishman 
at that time have thought of restricting " we the 
people of England" — "we the free people of Eng- 
land," exclusively to those few who possessed the 
elective franchise ? 

The charges of cruelty in the punishment, and 
barbarity in the treatment of slaves, are rebutted 
by €i priori considerations; the Christian j)i*inciple, 
the natural kindness, and, above all, the pecuniary 
interest of the master — and well may he give the 

that in respect to the qualification of electors for the most numer- 
ous branches of the State Legislatures, there was no distinction on 
account of colour in those nine States. Connecticut and Rhode 
Island, being under the old royal charters, could have none. 
South Carolina, by its Constitution of 1776, allowed negroes to 
vote, but in 1778 the privilege was restricted to every "white 
man," &c. In Delaware, by act of February 3, 1787, emanci- 
pated slaves and their issue were debarred " the privilege of voting 
at elections or being elected." And even this seems to have been 
a violation of the letter of the Constitution of the State. It is 
well known among intelligent men, that the practice of admitting 
free men of colour to vote obtained universally at first among all 
the original "old thirteen." In Virginia, negroes voted side by side 
with white men until 1830 ! 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 59 

chief place to this last consideration — forbid it. And 
then our Lord JTesus Christ cleansing the temple with 
his scourge of small cords is brought forward, side 
by side with the whipping-post, to encourage the 
slave-driver and the overseer as they ply the lash 
upon the backs of the poor slaves, male and female, 
and to illustrate the functions of their office ! ! And 
the whole is wound up with the characteristic inter- 
rogatory : "Are our modern philanthropists more 
merciful than Christ, and wiser than the Almighty ?'' 
I will not trust myself to characterize such a train 
of thought. I might be led to use much stronger 
language than that of the " reviling, vilifying, in- 
sulting, vituperative, calumnious and slanderous'' 
Protest itself 

In answer to the charge that slavery leads to im- 
morality , it is replied that there is no evidence that 
it leads to more immorality " in the slave population 
of all the fifteen slave States, than is found in the 
single city of JJSTew York, in Sabbath breaking, pro- 
fane cursing and swearing, gambling, drunkenness 
and quarrelling, in brutal abuse of wives and chil- 
dren, in rowdyism and obscenity, in the vilest ex- 
cesses of shameless prostitution — to say nothing of 
organized bands of counterfeiters, thieves and bur- 
glars." But who, what " servant of Jesus Christ," 
undertakes formally to defend such vices or their 
causes in the city of ]N'ew York ? And supjDOSO the 
slaves are saved from many of them, from gambling, 
counterfeiting, burglary, and abuse of wives and 
children, for example, — what is gained by it in the 
moral elevation of the mass, when, to accomplish it, 
they arc all deprived of their very humanity — of all 
freedom of action and devoloi)ment as moral beings? 



60 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

If they were transformed into a herd of beasts, they 
would be guilty of no immoralities at all. Besides, 
the regular normal results of a system, on the one 
hand, and its abuses and perversions on the other, 
have very diverse bearings in determining its proper 
character. In some of the slave States, and perhaps 
in strictness it is true in all, the slaves have no legal 
icives at all ; and suppose there is as much of loose- 
ness of sentiment and practice in connexion with 
the marriage relation among the mass of the popu- 
lation of Xew York as among the Southern slaves — 
which is unquestionably a gross exaggeration — still, ^ 
how great the difference between its being systema- 
tically established, encouraged and protected by law, 
and its irregular existence in spite of the law ? But 
it is curious and almost ludicrous to see the Bishop 
gloating with such evident logical and rhetorical 
satisfaction over the vices, crimes, and debasement 
of the " lower class" of the population of the city 
of ^ew York, when they are precisely the best 
friends of his cause ; they are his true constituents 
as a pro-slavery political leader; they, and not the 
virtuous country population, whether of Kew York 
or of Yermont, are his true disciples as a pro-slavery 
apostle. The most rabid pro-slavery fanatics, and 
the most ferocious haters of the negro race, are pre- 
cisely the New York mob. Let him collect the Sab- 
bath breakers, the profane swearers, the gamblers, 
drunkards, and street-fighters, the abusers of wives 
and children, the rowdy, obscene and grossly licen- 
tious, the counterfeiters, thieves and burglars of the 
city of Xew York; and ask them their sentiments 
on the slavery question. He will then find, perhaps, 
that there are some associates whom a good man 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 61 

might wish to avoid, besides Garrison, Beecher, 
Emerson and Parker. And suppose there are some 
cases of licentiousness among the higher classes of 
Northern society to set off against the licentiousness 
of slaveholders among their helpless slaves; is it 
nothing that in the one case the immorality is pro- 
tected bv the law, and in the other the crime is 
punished by the law ? But though the poor negro 
woman is not allowed to testify in court against her 
ravisher, her offspring testifies, " before this sun," in 
a language that cannot be misunderstood, and which 
leaves no suspicion of perjury. Let the increase of 
mulattoes in the Southern States bear witness to the 
comparative licentiousness or purity of a slave-hold- 
ing population. 

As to property in man, the *' Christian Bishop" 
gravely tells us that " no slaveholder pretends that 
this property extends any further than the right to 
the labour of the slave. . . . The intellect and the soul, 
which properly constitute the max, are free in their 
own nature from all human restraint." Thus he 
would resolve slaverv into a peculiar form of a verv 
general human relation which is perfectly right and 
proper; and taking into account the assumed intel- 
lectual inferiority of the negroes, he would justify 
this peculiar form of that relation in their case. But, 
says the South Carolina code, " slaves are deemed, 
held, taken, reputed and judged in law to be chattels 
personal in the hands of their owners or possessors, 
and their executors, administrators and assicrns, to 
all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever." 
And the Louisiana code declares that '' a slave is one 
who is in the jDOwer of a master to whom he belongs. 
The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his 
6 



62 SOUTH ERNSLAVERY. 

industry, and bis labour. lie can do nothing, possess 
nothing, nor acquire anything, but must belong to 
his master." These are specimens of slave laws. 
Were the authors of the Carolina and Louisiana 
codes " slaveholders ?" If so, slaveholders seem to 
have taken especial pains to show and claim that 
the property of the master in the slave extends to 
something beyond "his labour." But if the Bishop 
wishes to refine upon the case and speak philosophi- 
cally, I am ready to admit that the slaveholder has 
no use for the person, the soul, or intellect of tho 
slaves, except with a view to the labour he can get 
out of them ; that they are for him merely producing 
machines, — the intellect, the soul, being regarded 
simply as the driving force, — that his grand object 
is work, work, gain, money. "To this end all the rest 
is made to converge. Give him the full control of 
the body of the slave and all its activities, and he 
cares not how free his soul may be in its unapproach- 
able sanctuary. And provided he can extract from 
him the greatest amount of labour here on earth, I 
suppose he is perfectly willing that his soul should 
afterwards have its rest in heaven. But if he " can- 
not bind the intellect," he can keep it in enforced 
darkness and ignorance; if he "cannot bind the 
soul," he can stint and stop its moral development 
by systematically cutting off from it all means of 
moral groAvth and culture. Having for generations 
precluded the blacks, by strict legal provisions, from 
all opportunity of intellectual enlightenment and 
improvement, he can turn around and talk philoso- 
phically of the intellectual inferiority of the African 
race, and give that as a reason for keeping them in 
perpetual bondage. If they have not an intellect 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 63 

equal to that of the whites, it is thus practically con- 
fessed that they have an intellect superior to their 
condition as slaves, and w^hich needs to be restrained 
and repressed in order to secure the master in reap- 
ing the fruits of their " labour/'' Shame on such a 
system and its impious defenders ! For I speak of 
the system and not of the practice or character of 
every individual slaveholder. 

But " God has wonderfully adapted the race to 
their condition," devoutly adds the " Christian 
Bishop." That is to say, men have found a race of 
their brethren so weak and gentle, so docile and pa- 
tient, so submissive and affectionate, that they can 
conveniently, safely and profitably make them their 
slaves ; — one would suppose that to do this was crime 
and baseness enough — but no, they are not content 
without adding impiety to oj^pression, and urge the 
blasphemous excuse that " God has wonderfally 
adapted the race to their condition !" 

The Bishop alleges that " emancipation has, in a 
majority of cases, failed to benefit the negro, and 
has, on the contrary, sunk him far lower in his social 
position;" — that is to say, the sporadic cases of eman- 
cipation under the law^s, customs, and social influ- 
ences and prejudices of the slaveholding States, such 
as they are. But what shall we say of the laws and 
customs, the moral and social tone, of a people, 
where a man, — a veritable man, made in the very 
image of God, — but being in a greater or less degree 
of a certain hue, is, by becoming a freeman, sunk 
far lower than the slave in social position ? 

In his attempt to answer the arginncntum ad Jiomi- 
nem, " how should you like to be a slave ?" the Bishop 
entirely misses the point. The question is not at all 



64 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

<' how lie should like to be another man, or to practice 
another profession?" but, being a man, '^ how he 
should like to he a slave f It is not, whether he 
would be a shoemaker, or a sheriff, or a stevedore, 
or a lawyer, or a scavenger, — hut how he should 
like to be deprived of his liberty, and compelled to be 
any of those or anything else, at the arbitrary will 
of another man, and as a mere instrument and tool 
for his profit ? The love of liberty is presumed to 
belong to man, as man, — to be a natural sentiment 
if not a "natural right" of humanity. Does the 
"Christian Bishop" suppose that it is no more a 
jreneral attribute of human nature, than is a taste or 
aptitude for some particular employment or trade ? 
It is presumable that a slave may love liberty as 
passionately as even the learned and refined Bishop, 
just as the shoemaker or the " Irish labourer" may 
love his wife and his children as much as " the mer- 
chant-prince," "the American statesman," or "the 
British peer;" and, if you would forcibly deprive 
him of either, he may fairly ask " how you would 
like to have your children torn from you ?" And if, 
on the other hand, any social system can actually 
succeed in divesting men, any race, or class of men, 
of their love of libery, their love of parents, of 
wife, of children, and thus eradicating from their 
hearts the very affections and character of humanity, 
— who would not consider it the most withering and 
damning charge under which any social system could 
rest? Who would not consider the defence of such 
a system " unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ?" 
There can be no more utter and fatal condemnation 
of slavery than its oft repeated excuse — " the slaves 
no not desire to be free, — they are happy as they 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 65 

are/'* But, says the " Christian Bishop," there are 
thousands in our land, free according to law, w^ho 
are quite unfit for freedom. " They are in bondage 
to Satan." Would it be right, then, for us to enslave 
them, in imitation of their present master ? The 
oldest slaveholder is undoubtedly Satan himself 

In the " Christian Bishop's" view, it is no valid 
objection to the system of American slavery that it 
involves the frequent compulsory separation of hus- 
band and wife, of parents and children. On this 

^ We will grant, notwithstanding, that many slaves are happy ; 
habit is so powerful and God so good! The poor girl has in her 
garret a holy image of her mother's ring; the lonely orphan 
tending goats or swine on the slope of the mountain knows of 
unknown springs and bird's nests hidden in the rock, which be- 
long to him and to him alone ; and even in the dungeon's depths 
the prisoner at length creates to himself a little world apart, 
peopled by an insect, a flower, a sunbeam, a name cut in the 
wall. God does not suflFer a blade of grass to lack a drop of 
water, nor a human being to lack a gleam of happiness. The 
poor slave, if he does not divert his thoughts from life, ends by 
becoming accustomed to it, consoled for it ; he thinks of death, 
then of heaven ! But he is happy tji spite of slavery, not on ac- 
count of it ; his happiness he finds in the little liberty of which 
he dreams, or which he gives himself. The master knows it 
well. What recompense does he promise the slave at the end of 
a life of devotion? Liberty. Besides, is there not veritable 
confusion in all this discussion ? Do we rightly comprehend our- 
selves, and are we speaking of the same thing ? To be happy, to 
be free,— are these synonymous ? I tell you that the slave should 
be free, and you reply to me that he eats, that he drinks, that 
he sleeps, that he dances, that he is happy. I speak to you of 
liberty, which is the happiness of the soul, and you tell me of 
enjoyment, which is the servitude of the senses. I speak to you 
of a birthright, and you answer me with a dish of pottage ! Let 
us have done with this misunderstanding. (Cochin, Results of 
Slavery, p. 90.) 
6* 



06 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

point, his zeal for his favourite institution has carried 
him beyond even the slaveholders themselves; for 
the Southern Bishops, in their so-called " Pastoral 
Letter" a few years since, distinctly admitted such 
separations to be wrong, to be " unchristian,'' to be 
an evil in the system which ought to be forthAvith 
remedied. But the " Christian Bishop's" argument 
on this point is as extraordinary for a logician as his 
conclusion is for " a servant of Jesus Christ." By 
the slavery of circumstances, says he, it comes to 
pass not unfrequently in the ordinary course of life, 
that husbands and wives, parents and children, are 
separated from each other; and "is it wise to de- 
claim against this necessity in one form when we 
are forced to submit to it in so many other kinds of 
the same infliction ?" But because husband and wife 
may be separated in various ways in the course of 
Providence, is the slaveholder justified in separating 
them by force^ at his will, and for the sake of gain, 
of money, of mean and miserable money — which 
only the thrifty and infidel abolition Yankees are 
supposed to seek ? The husband and wife may have 
no more occasion to " complain" of Divine Provi- 
dence in one case than in the other, but they may 
have occasion to complain of human oppression and 
wrong. Indeed there is no crime which the Bishop's 
reasoning will not excase, or charge upon the Provi- 
dence of God. The thief may Sciy, " why, it is no 
uncommon thing for men to lose their property by 
flood or fire; is it wise, then, to complain just when 
it is stolen ?" And the murderer may say, " men 
often die of disease, why complain just when they 
are murdered?" Suppose the king of Dahomey, 
having slaughtered his hecatomb of human victims, 



THE LETTER, AND THE ANSWER. 07 



should stand up amidst the reeking sacrifice and lift 
his bloody hands and say, "let no man wag his blas- 
phemous tongue against w^hat I have done. ' "VYo to 
him that striveth with his maker.' ' There can be 
no greater blasphemy than imputing wrong to the 
decrees of the eternal Judge.' Be it known to all, 
that I am fully justified in butchering these men; 
because it is no uncommon thing for men to die, and these 
very persons would soon have died in some way or other j 
if I had not killed them /" 

Like all pro-slavery reasoners, the " Christian 
Bishop" is evidently gravelled by the parallel case 
of Polygamy. He makes the best of it. He endea- 
vours to show that Polygamy is forbidden in the 
New Testament ; but, after all, it is not from direct 
texts, but only in an inferential way. And as much as 
that has been done over and over again in the argu- 
ment against slavery. It is equally true of slavery 
and of polygamy that our Saviour never mentioned 
them in his instructions, nor have his apostles ex- 
pressly forbidden them. As to the Hebrew^ right of 
divorce, the Bishop represents it as " an indulgence 
granted by Moses,'* which, says he, " is a very different 
thing from an authoritative decree of the Almighty." 
This curious idea of his, that the allowing of divorce 
was a part of the law of Moses, but not a part of the 
law of God, he elsewhere insists upon. We shall 
recur to this subject of divorce and polygamy in the 
sequel. 

" In regard to the slavery of Ham's posterity, God 
issues his commands distinctl}^," says the " Christian 
Bishop;" and this seems to be that "decree of the 
Almighty" to which he referred above as superior 
to the law of Moses. He had before spoken of the 



08 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

''prediction" or " prophecy" of Noali, and tlie " curse 
of Canaan," wliicli lie had enlarged into a "curse of 
Ilani," a curse upon Ham's posterity in general. 
Now he enlarges it still more into a "distinct com- 
mand" of the Almighty, liut God predicted the 
bondage of the descendants of Abraham in Egypt. 
Were the Egyptians, therefore, " distinctly com- 
manded" to enslave them? Noah cursed Canaan. 
Are all the "servants of Jesus Christ/' therefore, 
" distinctly commanded" to curse all the descendants 
of Ham to the end of time '^ And are we all, the 
sons of Japheth, " distinctly commanded" to make 
them slaves, wherever and whenever we can find 
them, and to hold Ihem in perpetual bondage ? What 
can be meant by this " distinct command," this " au- 
thoritative decree of the Almighty?" 

The " Christian Bishop" expressly urges his views 
"in the interests of Union and Peace," and declares 
that " the question of slavery lies at the root of our 
present dilliculties.'' Yet he insists that he is " no 
politician," and he elsewhere, in the most scornful 
terms, scouts at the idea of " expediency," of "poli- 
tical expediency," as a princii)le of action. 

lie declares that slavery has been an incalculable 
blessing to the negroes, the most effective agent for 
Christianizing and civilizing them that has ever 
existed; " and thus," says he, " the wisdom and good- 
ness of God are vindicated." But this is not the real 
end and object of his letter; and besides, if it had 
been, Avho has called " the wisdom and goodness of 
God" in question ? When slavery is assailed, it is not 
God that is complained of, but man. The true upshot 
and aim of the letter had been stated just before, in 
the words which we have already quoted : " The 



THE LETTER AND THE ANSWER. CO 

Blavery of the negro race, as maintained in the Southern 
States, appears to me fully authorized, both in the 
Old and the New Testaments.'^ Thus no mere ab- 
stract doctrine, but this concrete fact, is the true 
and practical conclusion of his whole argument. Has 
that conclusion been established? 

The " Christian Bishop" claims great credit for his 
hearty desire and his former labours for the aboli- 
tion of slavery. Yet he tells us that all along he has 
believed and taught " that the plain precepts and 
practice of the apostles sanctioned the institution, 
although, as a matter of expediency, the time might 
come when the South would prefer, as the North had 
done, to employ free labour." Thus its abolition was 
with him purely a question of expediency and Politi- 
cal Economy; and no wonder that, while the profits 
of cotton, and the lust of dominion stood in his way, 
his labours on such a platform produced such meagre 
results. 



CHAPTEE III. 

THE NEW GOSPEL OF SLAVERY. 

^^ rpHE Scriptural, ecclesiastical, and historical View 
X of Slavery," taken as a whole, is, perhaps, one 
of the most characteristic and elaborate specimens 
of the fallacy or sophism which the logicians have 
denominated ignoratio elenchi, or substitution of a 
false issue for the true one, which can be found in 
the whole range of polemic authorship. It refutes, 
or attempts to refute, at large, the extreme doctrines 
of the "ultra-abolitionists;" and then quietly assumes 
that the signers of the " Protest" are utterly routed 
and annihilated, together with all anti-slaverj- men 
who condemn the positions taken in the letter to 
which that Protest refers. But by what right is it 
taken for granted that all anti-slavery men, — all men 
who reject the pro-slavery doctrines of Bishop Hop- 
kins, are " ultra-abolitionists ?" 

The stale pro-slavery arguments from the Scrip- 
tures, which have already been alleged, answered, 
and refuted a score of times, are served up again 
and garnished with episcopal authority; the indexes 
of the Fathers and of Ecclesiastical councils are ran- 
sacked; doctors, commentators, publicists, historians, 
are quoted — and what do they prove? — why, that 
the relation between master and servant is not 
wrong; that Christianity does not expressly con- 

(70) 



THE NEW GOSPEL OF SLAVERY. 71 

demn slavery or formally require its immediate and 
total abolition ; that slavery existed in connexion 
with the Church, and under the protection of Chris^ 
tian legislation for many centuries; that the Ameri- 
can Constitution "is not a covenant with death and 
hell;" that certain good results have incidentally 
flowed from slavery; and that certain infidels have 
been ultra-abolitionists. And what of all this ? Does 
it prove that the principles, the genius and spirit 
and practical influence of Christianity are not and 
have not always been against slavery, slavery in the 
concrete, slavery proper, slavery as distinguished 
from other forms of service ? Does it show that that 
slavery which is intended to be perpetual, which 
separates husbands from wives, and parents from 
children, which reduces men to chattels, which for- 
bids their instruction, and uses them as mere instru- 
ments of gain to their masters, is all right ? Does 
it show that "slavery as it is maintained in the 
Southern States," — in the Cotton States, where the 
slaves are sent out to work in gangs under the lash 
of the overseer, or in the other States which sell 
men and women in the open market as their staple 
product, — is authorized and approved by the Chris- 
tian religion, the Christian Church, and Christian 
history? These are the conclusions which should 
have been established, and which are coolly assumed 
to be established, by the elaborate argument. Any 
intelligent reader can judge, when the question is 
fairly brought before his mind, whether they have 
been established. To the less learned portion of our 
readers, however, it may be proper to say, — lest they 
should bo dazzled or confounded by the immense 
array of lore gathered together in defence of sla- 



72 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

very, — that the simple statements of the Scripture, 
after all, furnish the strongest of the arguments 
alleged ; statements which Fathers, Councils, Doctors, 
and Commentators, do little more than repeat ; state- 
ments which the author of the " Yiew" must be aware 
are as well known, as cordially received, and as 
earnestly loved by the signers of the Protest as by 
himself; statements which are familiar to the ordi- 
nary readers of the Eible, and, with a full knowledge 
of which, they will be able to say, w^iether, on the 
whole, the Bible leaves on their minds the impres- 
sion that it is, in principle and spirit, a Pro-slavery 
Eible or an Anti-slavery Bible, a Bible approving or 
condemning such slavery as " is maintained in the Souther7i 
States r 

As the '' Christian Bishop'^ has taken some pains 
to define his position and his personal relation, pre- 
sent and past, to the subject in hand, I may, perhaps, 
be allowed to indulge in a little egotism also. Let 
me say, then, that I have always rejected the ex- 
treme doctrines of the ultra abolitionists, and in 
former times have earnestly contended against their 
practical aims and measures, — but in respect to the 
practical question, times have now changed; when 
slaveholders professed to fear the knife at their own 
throats, it was one thing; when they aim the knife 
at mine and my country's, it is another. I have 
never belonged to an abolition society, or gone to 
hear an abolition lecture, or read Uncle Tom ; but 
have clung to the Church, heard the Gospel, and 
studied the Bible. 1 had never before the rebellion 
preached an abolition sermon, and I have never pub- 
lished a pamphlet on the subject of slavery; but I 
have always exercised the elective franchise accord- 



THE NEW GOSPEL OF SLAVERY. 73 

ing to the dictates of my conscience and as a solemn 
duty I owed to my country. Nor do I see how any 
American citizen of Christian 2:)rinci2)les can consider 
it a matter of boast that he never voted at an elec- 
tion; — unless he means that, if he had voted, he 
would have voted wrong ; in that case, and only in 
that case, were it certainly better for him not to 
have voted at all. I have always accepted and ad- 
hered to the Federal Constitution and every provi- 
sion contained in it, the fugitive slave clause so-called 
included; but I have always abominated the fugitive 
slave law and the insulting, barbarous, and unconsti- 
tutional features of its enactments. I have ever 
been an ardent friend of African Colonization, as an 
anti-slavery measure, and am so still. I know that 
some slaveholders supported it as a pro-slavery mea- 
sure, as a means of amusing the anti-slaverj^ philan- 
thropists, and getting rid of the incumbrance of the 
free blacks : — whether the views of the " Christian 
Bishop," in his advocacy of Colonization, were more 
anti-slavery or pro-slavery, one may judge from his 
present position. But I never accepted the wild no- 
tion that African colonization was to put an end to 
American slavery by transporting all the blacks to 
Africa; my view has rather been that it would prove 
by a visible example that the blacks, notwithstanding 
all their alleged inferiority, are capable of governing 
themselves, developing industrial resources, educat- 
ing themselves, elevating themselves, and makuirr 
reasonable progress in civilization ; and thus would 
prepare the way for the amelioration of the condition 
of the race on this side of the Atlantic. The exam- 
ple, I think, has already been developed, and the 
time has come for making the application of the ar- 
7 



74 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

gument, if it is to have any practical application at 
all. But if, after all this, no minister or accredited 
agent of this new negro state is to be allowed to 
pollute the soil of our free republic, while they are 
welcomed by other Christian governments; if we 
are still to be told that negroes are an inferior race, 
fitted only to be slaves, made to work under the lash, 
that " God has wonderfully adapted them to their 
condition," that the '' curse of Ham" is upon them, 
and that he who would aim at their liberation is 
" contending with his Maker," opposing the " designs 
of Providence, and blasphemously resisting the de- 
crees and the express commands of the Eternal 
Judge," — if we are still to be told this by the coloniz- 
ing slaveholders, and if the colonizing " servants of 
Jesus Christ," and the colonizing " Christian Bishops" 
are not only to sustain but to lead them forward in 
such views, — what good is to be expected from Afri- 
can Colonization ? And what credit should such 
" servants of Jesus Christ" claim for their advocacy 
of the Colonization scheme ? 

I am ready cordially to admit and fully believe 
that there are, among those reckoned as slaveholders, 
men incomparably superior to myself in Christian 
spirit, in Christian character, in all the virtues and 
graces which adorn the Christian heart; — men who 
mourn over the evils and the wrongs of slavery with 
unspeakable and desponding sadness; men who do 
not hold or treat their slaves as slaves, but recognize 
and love them as brethren ; who care not only for 
their bodies, but for their minds and souls, as they 
who must give account; who would gladly see them 
happily free ; Avho are disposed to give them all the 
instruction and preparation for freedom they can, 



THE NEW GOSPEL OF SLAVERY. 75 

and to set them at liberty as soon as the laws of the 
State will allow it to be done consistently with their 
good, — men, in short, who detest the sentiments of 
the " Christian Bishop's" letter as cordially as do 
any of those who protested against it. And shall I 
condemn such men ? By no means. I would as soon 
think of condemning the Christian martyrs. 

If the legislature of any slaveholding State, instead 
of obstructing emancipation and aiming at the per- 
petuation and extension of slavery, encourages eman- 
cipation in ail possible ways, and honestly aims at 
the eventual abolition of slavery, providing for its 
ultimate and gradual yet certain extinction, securing 
to the slave the rights of person, marriage, and pro- 
perty as far as possible in his present condition, and 
to the freedmen the means of mental, moral, social 
and religious improvement, — I should hardly call 
such a State any longer a slaveholding State; 1 
should consider it in spirit, character, and purpose, 
a Free State. It would "not be chargeable with the 
moral guilt of slavery. Or if it must be called a 
slaveholding State, I should not go out of my way 
to condemn such slaveholding as that. But where 
was there ever in the memory of man, a slavehold- 
ing State with a government controlled by the slavehold- 
ing oligarchy^ whose legislation was of that character ? 
Slavery, as it is in general " maintained in the South- 
ern States," I hold, and have ever held, as a system, 
to be bad, morally bad, — not merely in extreme cases 
of abuse and outrage — but in its law, in its purpose, 
and in its use, — in its theory and in its 2">ractice. 

While slavery beseechingl}^ cried, '• have patience 
with me and I will set all right as soon as possible," 
I was not disposed to take it by the throat. But 



76 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

slavery has changed her tone. " She was at first 
humble, then apologetic, then respectable, then jus- 
tifiable, then necessary, then a blessing, then divinely 
appointed, then ambitious, then aggressive, then 
domineering, then insulting, then rebellious." Sla- 
very is, at last, established and sanctioned by the decree 
of the Eternal Judge and the distinct command of the 
Almighty^ is a fundamental condition of the purest Chris- 
tianity, and the highest civilization, and the true corner 
stone of a Christian State. 

Such is the new Gospel Slavery, — a Gospel preached 
now by " Christian Bishops,'^ who ascribe its origin 
to Jesus Christ, and his apostles, its propagation to 
the Christian Church, and its constitutional establish- 
ment in this country to the fathers and founders of 
American freedom; and who denounce all its op- 
posers as blasphemous atheists and anti-Christs. 

Now it is a great mistake to suppose that there is 
no middle ground between these new gosj)ellers and 
the '' ultra-abolitionists." 

" Slavery is a wrong and a sin •/' therefore, say the 
ultra-abolitionists, " it ought to be abolished univer- 
sally, absolutely, and instantly — no compromise, no 
degrees, no delays, this very moment and every- 
where." On the other hand, the new gospellers say, 
"it is manifest that this universal, absolute, and in- 
stantaneous abolition, is not required either by the 
Holy Scripture, by Christian doctrine, or by sound 
reason ; and therefore slavery is neither a wrong nor 
a sin." Now both parties are wrong, and both are 
right. They are both right in their premises and 
both wrong in their conclusion ; and the difficulty 
arises from the term "slavery" being -used in dif- 
ferent senses in the different propositions. In its 



THE NEW GOSPEL OE SLAVERY. 77 

concrete and practical sense, in which slavery means 
the denial of human rights to the slave, and the cor- 
responding motive and purpose of the master, and 
his corresponding treatment of the slave, it is a 
wrong and a sin, if there be any such thing as wrong 
or sin in human conduct, and ought universally, 
absolutely, and instantly to be abolished. In the 
sense in which slavery may mean a mere formal, 
legal, and temporary relation existing for the good 
of the slave and with a view to his preparation for 
freedom, its universal, absolute and instant abolition 
is not required by reason, scripture or humanity, and 
it is neither a wrong nor a sin. But when the ultra- 
abolitionist draws his conclusion, he means it must 
be abolished in this latter sense, though his premise 
is true only for the former sense, and when the new 
gospeller says it is neither a wrong nor a sin, he 
means in the former sense, though his premise is 
true only in the latter. 

But, sa3^s the New Gospeller, '' slavery is one thing, 
and the treatment of the slave is manifestly another 
thing." To this I answer, I know of no slavery, I 
am concerned about no slavery, under the sun, ab- 
stracted from treatment. If the law makes the slave a 
chattel, and his master treats him as a man and not 
as a chattel, then he do-es not treat him as a slave. 
[f the law divests the slave of all rights, and his 
master recognizes and respects all his rights and 
claims, as a man and a brother, he does not treat him 
as a slave. And when no men are treated as slaves^ 
slavery is virtually abolished; and this is the aboli- 
tion which the New Testament expressly requires. 
The New Testament does not meddle with the legis- 
lative functions of government; it issues no formal 



78 S U T n E R N S L A V E R Y. 

commands to rulers. But if the slaveholding legis- • 
lators do not intend to treat, or to authorize any 
others to treat, any men as chattels, or to deprive 
them of their natural rights as men, why retain such 
laws on the statute book? Are there, were there 
ever, on the face of the earth, any legislators so 
stupid as that ? Such laws, if they intend such re- 
sults, are wrong; if not, they are unaccountably 
foolish. 

Whether slavery is a sin, will be further discussed 
in an appropriate cha]Dter. But what I have to insist 
on now is, that, in this discussion, we have to do with 
no abstractions, but with a concrete, practical thing. 
Abstract slavery exists nowhere. Slavery is a fact^ 
and as a fact we have to deal with it. What we have 
to do with is, moreover, the definite fact of " slavery 
as it is maintained in the Southern States." 

As I have said, I have strongly objected heretofore 
to the aims and measures and oftentimes intemperate 
language of the ultra-abolitionists. But while I 
earnestly opposed their doctrines and sentiments 
and expressions, I as earnestly maintained, and still 
maintain, their right of free speech^ and in defending 
it I should be ready to suffer any indignity or vio- 
lence. I hold that every American has, and always 
has had, the right to discuss the subject of slavery, 
like any other moral or political question, to his 
heart's content, — a right expressly guarantied to 
him by the Constitution. Some men seem to think 
that the only thing solemnly guarantied by the Con- 
stitution, and made absolutely sacred, is property in 
slaves, and hence they are amazingly enamoured of 
the Constitution. They had not until quite recently 
discovered that Free Speech is guarantied also — 



THE NEW GOSPEL OF SLAVERY. 79 

they never imagined it was guarantied to ultra-abo- 
litionists, but they have at last discovered that it is 
guarantied to sympathizers with treason and rebel- 
lion. It was undoubtedly the intention of the slave- 
ocracy, if they could have retained control of the 
government, utterly to stop the mouths of all prating 
abolitionists from one end of the Union to the other, 
that then they might hold their chattels in peace. I 
have myself been told to my face by one of their 
Northern abettors, a man of high political considera- 
tion, and at that time a Judge of a State Supreme 
Court, " Sir, you have no right to lecture about sla- 
very, you have no right to print about slavery, you 
have no right to preach about slavery, you have no 
right to talk about slavery, you have no right to 
think about slavery — it is a crime." He said " about,'' 
but of course meant " against." This was just before 
the Southern rebellion burst out. 

I have no doubt that if the deliberate designs of 
the slavocrats and their Il^orthern allies could have 
been carried out, free America would soon have been 
the place, and the only place, on the face of the eartb, 
where no anti-slavery man would have been allow^ed 
to wag his tongue, and where to condemn slavery 
would have been punished as " a crime." But it may 
be said, it is the reckless, violent, slanderous and 
outrageous language of the abolitionists that it was 
proposed to restrain. The Judge went further than 
that; and undoubtedly his Southern masters meant 
to make thorough work of it if they could. It ought 
not to be forgotten, however, that all the abusive, 
insulting, reckless and outrageous language did not 
come from the side of the abolitionists. On the con- 
trary, they were far more than outdone by the fana- 



80 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

tical virulence and studied insolence of their adver- 
saries. AYitncss the following language of one of 
their number who has been supposed to have been 
really attached to the Union, and to have clung to 
it to the last moment, Alexander H. Stephens, now 
Yice-President of the so-called Confederate States, 
then a member of Congress from Georgia. It is 
from a speech which he delivered in the House of 
Eepresentatives upon the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
and I give it as reported in the newspapers at the 
time. It is true, as the author published his corrected 
speech in the Congressional Globe, it is considerably 
softened and diluted; but it remains substantially 
the same. " "Well, gentlemen, you make a good deal 
of clamour over the l!^ebraska measure, but it don't 
alarm us at all. AYe have got used to that kind of 
talk. You have threatened before, but you have 
never performed. You have always caved in, and 
you will again. You are a mouthing white-livered 
set. Of course you will oppose the measure ; we 
expected that; but we don't care for your opposi- 
tion. You will rail, but we don't care for your rail- 
ing. You will hiss, but so do adders. We expect it 
of adders, and we expect it of you. You are like 
the devils that were pitched over the battlements 
of heaven into hell. They set up a howl at their 
discomfiture, and so will you. But their fate was 
sealed, and so is yours. You must submit to the yoke, 
but don't chafe. Gentlemen, we have got you in our 
power. You tried to drive us to the wall in 1850, 
but times are changed. * * * =*^ You went a wooling, 
and have come home fleeced. Don't be so impudent 
as to complain. You will only be slapped in the face. 
Don't resist. You ivill only be lashed into obedience.'" 



THE NEW GOSPEL OF SLAVERY. 81 

JSTow let the place, the time, the circumstances and 
the person be remembered; and then let us hear no 
more from pro-slavery men about the violent and 
abusive and sectional language of abolitionists.* 

* Should the fact that this speech of Mr. Stephens is not, in 
these precise words, acknowledged by him in the text of the 
Congressional Globe, be alleged to prove that he did not utter 
these words on the floor of the House ; — in the first place I think 
it does not prove the point ; in the second place I refer the reader 
to the Congressional Globe, where he will find the speech, too 
much extended for insertion here, but containing the same mat- 
ter and spirit which are condensed into the briefer form above 
cited ; in the third place I find in the Congressional Globe itself 
a record of the following interruptions of Mr. Lovejoy of Illi- 
nois, when speaking in the House on Slavery, in the Session of 
I860:— 

By Mr. Barksdale of Mississippi: "Order that blackhearted 
scoundrel and nigger-stealing thief to take his seat." 

By Mr. Boyce, of South Carolina, addressing Mr. Lovejoy: 
"Then behave yourself." 

By Mr. Gartrell, of Georgia, (in his seat): "The man is 
crazy." 

By Mr. Barksdale, of Mississippi, again: "No, Sir, you stand 
there to-day an infamous, perjured villain." 

By Mr. Ashmore, of South Carolina: "Yes, he is a perjured 
villain, and he perjures himself every hour he occupies a seat 
on this floor." 

By Mr. Singleton, of Mississippi: "And a negro-thief into the 
bargain." 

By Mr. Barksdale, of Mississippi, again : " I hope my colleague 
will hold no parley with that perjured negro-thief." 

By Mr. Singleton, of Mississippi, again: "No, Sir, any gen- 
tleman shall have time, but not such a mean, despicable wretch 
as that." 

By Mr. Martin, of Virginia: "And if you come among us, we 
will do with you as we did with John Brown — hang you as high 
as Ilaman. I say that as a Virginian." 

I cannot forbear reminding the reader, that these very men, 



82 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

It has been usual for many years past for Soutli 
Carolinians and siaveliolders generally to decry and 
disparage New England. Their venom and spite 
against New England could never be sufficiently 
vented. This bitter and virulent anti-New England 
feeling has become a marked characteristic of the 
rebellion, and very naturally commands the symj)a- 
thy and imitation of all those who are at heart dis- 
posed to side with the rebels. But loyal men may 
w^ell stop and consider how far such petty sectional 
antipathies can be encouraged or entertained, con- 
sistently with a patriotic regard for the Union of the 
country. New England is loyal, thoroughly loyal; 
will loyal men therefore cast her off and treat her 
with contempt ? New England may have boasted 
of herself quite too much -, but, in the first place, she 
really had something to boast of; and, in the second 
place, she does not envy or disparage others. She rejoices 
in the greatness and prosperity of the Empire State 
of New York, and of her magnificent metropolis, 
though they have both vastly outstrij^ped her own 
States and cities in the race of wealth and civic 
grandeur. She rejoices in the noble history, the vast 
resources, and the rapid growth of Pennsylvania; and 
makes her pilgrimages to Independence Hall. She 
looks upon the other States as but parts of her com- 
mon country; and she shares in their prosperity and 
renown. She has no jealousy or contempt for any 
State in the Union. Even the great men of South 
Carolina she has been accustomed to regard as her 

who wei'e thus insolently accusing Mr. Lovejoj of " perjury," 
were, notwithstanding their solemn oaths to support the Consti- 
tution of the United States, plotting treason and secession then, 
and had been plotting it for years ! 



THE NEW GOSPEL OE SLAVERY. 83 

own. And Washington, the Yirginian, she reveres, 
and will ever revere, Avith filial regard, as the piirest 
and nohlest name in a history which she is proud to 
share in as the history of her countr}'. Kew Eng- 
land may boast of herself, but it is not her habit to 
detract from others. She may have her faults in her 
past history and in her present character; and happy 
the State which has none, or even which has no 
greater.. But for a New England Bishop to join in 
the crusade against Xew England, in the effort to 
heap contempt upon ]N"ew England, is peculiarly 
odious. It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest. To 
decry the Puritans is not enough to make a good 
churchman; and to decry New England will not 
suffice to make a generous and patriotic American. 
But, perhaps, it could hardly be expected that an 
" Irishman" should have any appreciation of the 
old Puritans, or of the Puritan stock. For mj'self, 
I claim to be a Yankee, the son of a Yankee, and 
the grandson of a Yankee, — a Yankee to the back- 
bone; and if there are any among us who, in the 
face of traitors and rebels, are ashamed for their 
loyalty to be called Yankees, I am sorry for it. Any 
name is an honour which distinguishes me from the 
enemies of my country. 

The ''Christian Bishop" fights iho ''Ultra- AhoU- 
tionists" as he calls them, and would seem disposed 
to claim to be himself an abolitionist. I also dis- 
claim the positions of the "ultra-abolitionist," and 
might seem to occupy substantially the same ground 
as he. But the difi'erenee is as great as that between 
the twilight of the morning and the twilight of the 
evening. The tendencies are contrary. AVe may 
stand on the same ground, l)ut he looks one way, 



84 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

and I look the other ; he looks against emancipation 
and in favour of slaver}^; I look against slavery and 
in favour of emancipation. The same premises may 
be so arrayed and used as to lead to opposite con- 
clusions. It is said that on a certain occasion, Mr. 
Pitt being about to make a speech on Indian affairs, 
and directing his secretary to prepare for him the 
statistics relating to the subject, the secretary asked ., 
" On which side does your Lordship desire the argu- 
ment to come out V 

But while I contend for ultimate abolition, I will 
not say how rapidly, in a normal condition of things, 
the process of emancipation ought to go on. Nor 
must I be understood to maintain that the negroes 
should be placed at once upon a social and political 
equality in all respects with the whites. Personal 
liberty and other civil rights, as the rights of mar- 
riage, of property, of contracts, are one thing; and 
the elective franchise is another. The elective fran- 
chise is a matter of public expediency, not of private 
right. Multitudes of free Englishmen, not to say 
the mass of free Europeans, possess no elective fran- 
chise. Social position and intercourse must be set- 
tled, not by legislation, or as a matter of proper 
right, but by the prevailing spirit and habits of 
society, the tastes and preferences of individuals. 
Only give the negro an open field, a fair opportu- 
nity ; and then let him have whatever he can earn ; 
whatever he shows himself worthy of, let him be 
allowed to receive. As to amalgamation, miscegena- 
tion, and that stuff, which so provokes the j^retended 
horror of some persons, the surest way to stop it 
completely is to emancipate the slaves at once. That 
these processes are going on much more rapidly 



THE NEW GOSPEL OF SLAVERY. 85 

among the domestic slaves than among the free 
blacks, let the children's faces testify. 

The " Christian Bishop'' claims to be an abolition- 
ist; but nobody will call him so. The abolitionists 
will not claim him. The slaveholders will not de- 
nounce him. I expect to be denounced as a Yankee 
and an abolitionist, with all the terms of obloquy, 
spite and odium, contempt, contumely and cursing, 
which the friends of slavery are accustomed to con- 
nect with those names. It has long been their well 
known policy to undermine the social position, de- 
grade the character, and bring into disrepute and 
contempt the names, of all their earnest and out- 
spoken opponents. I am prepared for it all. The 
" Yiewof Slavery'^ may serve as a somewhat dignified 
and reticent specimen of the insolence and abuse in 
which they are prone to indulge. But the insolence 
and abuse are nothing to me. The doctrine itself is 
the main thing. And it is with a sense of unsj)eak- 
able humiliation and sadness that I find such doc- 
trines as constitute this new gospel of slavery — 
promulgated by a " Christian Bishop" in the nine- 
teenth century of the Christian era. Let us humbly 
pray that they may be retracted by their author for 
his own sake ; or, at least, that the overdose may pre- 
vent any pernicious effects upon others. 



CHxVPTER lY. 

SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 

ONE of the stereotyped methods by which the 
apologists and eulogists of slavery have always 
endeavoured to bring odium on their opponents, has 
been, to class them with rationalists, infidels, and 
atheists. So the Southern Bishops in their so-called 
Pastoral Letter. So the "View of Slavery." In 
several places the effort is made, and in one chapter, 
systematically made, to associate the opponents of 
slavery with those Avho say, " down with a pro-sla- 
very Bible," and particularly with Emerson and 
Parker, and men of similar Tlieological proclivities. 
Now it is a curious fact that it is preciselj^ the New 
Gospellers and not the Christian anti-slavery men, 
who airree with that school of rationalists and infi- 
dels, and continually play into their hands. The 
" View of Slavery" adopts the premises of the Infidel, 
and then denies his conclusion. The anti-slaver ij men 
deny both. The Infidel says, " the Bible sanctions 
slavery ; then the Bible is not the word of God." 
The " View of Slavery" says, " the Bible sanctions 
slaverj-; but the Bible is the word of God." The 
anti-slavery Christian says, " the Bible docs not sanc- 
tion slavery; and the Bible is the word of God." 
But so long as you give the Infidel his premise ho 
will infallibly draw his conclusion; and, until the 

(86) 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 87 

reason and conscience of men can be remodelled, lie 
will succeed in leading multitudes more to draw tbe 
same conclusion. ISTcither the Infidel nor tbe New 
Gospeller could assume a more damaging concession 
or make a more calumnious and blasphemous charge 
against the Bible than this : — that it is a pro-slavery 
Bible, that it sanctions holding one's fellow men as 
chattels, that it authorizes slavery " as it is main- 
tained in the Southern States," in the Cotton States, 
and in States where men and women are systemati- 
cally bred for the market as a staple j^roduct. Let 
this point be yielded, let this charge be established, 
and infidelity exults in the confidence of a speedy 
and certain triumph — a confidence not unfounded. 
But it may be said, if it be really true that the Bible 
sanctions slavery, we are bound as Christians not to 
deny the fact or pervert the Scriptures, but humbly 
to bow to their instructions. Yes, if this be really 
true; but that is a question of fact, and as a question 
of fact, it should be investigated candidl}^, dispas- 
sionately, and impartially ; and no odium should at- 
tach to the conclusion reached on tlie one side or 
the other. And, in like manner, the infidel's conclu- 
sion also, "that the Bible is not the word of God," 
if it be true, ought to be admitted, and no odium 
should attach to its admission or assertion. But, if as a 
Christian I may shrink with horror from the infidel's 
conclusion, so as a Christian I may detest the infidel's 
premise, especially when I see it put forward and 
peremptorily insisted on by a professed " servant of 
Jesus Christ" in the interest of such an abominable 
and effete institution as American chattel slavery, 
and in utter disregard of the odium and infamy thus 
heaped upon the Christian religion. 



88 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

The " Yiew of Slavery," like the " Letter" to which 
it is a sequel, makes the " curse of Canaan" one of 
its principal arguments. It first recurs to the origi- 
nal position, that the " curse of Canaan" was intended 
for all the posterity of Ham, and makes an effort to 
impose this dogma upon all Episcopalians hy the 
authority of Bishop Newton, as though, because the 
House of Bishops have prescribed " ISTewton on the 
Prophecies" as a part of the course of study for 
Theological students, therefore all good churchmen 
were bound to accept every interpretation and sug- 
gestion of Newton as infallible truth, even though 
it might eventually be found to involve palpable 
falsehoods or horrible and blasphemous consequences; 
all which the good Bishop, in his simplicity, never 
dreamt of. Even if history had shown it to be true 
of all the descendants of Ham that they have been 
slaves to the posterity of Shem and Japheth, this 
would not prove that Noah predicted it. And then, 
what shall we say to Nineveh, and Babylon, and 
Phenicia, and Egypt ? These all belonged to Ham's 
descendants ; but were they servants to Shem and 
Japheth ? Were they not rather the first conquerors 
of the world, the founders of commerce and letters 
and arts and civilization, and the teachers of man- 
kind? Nimrod, a son of Cush, was probably the first 
man who enacted the petty tyrant, and held his fel- 
low men as his slaves. But the author of the " Yiew 
of Slavery" seems at length to have seen reason to 
distrust this his former interpretation, an interpre- 
tation which would require the original Hebrew text 
of our Bibles to be changed, without the slightest 
authority except that of one solitary version ; and 
which has against it almost all the critical learning 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 89 

of the Avorld. He resorts to another theory, of which, 
so far as appears, he has the credit of being the au- 
thor. It is, that the Africans are the descendants of 
Canaan himself. Por, in the exuberance of his Chris- 
tian and Episcopal charity, he is determined, at all 
hazards, that the poor negroes shall be accursed. If 
the curse cannot be brought to bear upon them in 
one way, he will try another. And the way attempted 
is very curious. 

1. " Canaan had eleven sons, — more than either 
of his brothers ; therefore his descendants must be 
presumed to have been more numerous than those 
of either of them ; and probably they went and 
settled in Africa.'' — But Isaac had two sons, and 
Jacob had twelve; were therefore the descendants 
of Jacob more numerous than those of Isaac ? Ben- 
jamin had ten sons, Judah three, and Dan one; were 
these the proportional numbers of their posterity in 
the wilderness, and afterwards in the times of Samuel 
and David ? The Benjamites were at one time very 
few in Israel; had the balance probably gone to 
Africa ? 

2. " The Bible accounts for but seven tribes or 
nations of the Canaanites who were to be destroved 
by the children of Israel in the promised land; leav- 
ing four more to be accounted for, who, with the 
remnants that escaped of the seven, probably went 
to Africa." — But Sidon and Ilamath are among the 
four, and they are accounted for as well known 
places; while Sodom and Gromorrah, and the cities 
of the plain, may well account for the other two, 
without going to Africa. It is true that from Sidon 
came Tyre, and Tyre sent a colony to Africa. But 

there is no reason to suppose — rather the contrary — 
8* 



90 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

that the Carthaginians, who woro descendants of 
Canaan, wore, or ever became, African negroes. Or, 
if Hannibal were of the race of African negroes, then 
histor}^ has shown ns one man of this negro race 
who exhibited no small degree of intellectual ability. 
Any nation might count itself happy if, in its hour 
of need, it could be sure of finding among the fore- 
most of its sons, a military genius equal to the son 
of Ilamilcar. 

3. "Abulfaragi says that, in the division of the 
earth made in the time of Peleg, Palestine was as- 
signed to Shem, and India and Africa to Ilam. — 
This division was made by divine authority, and has 
the force of a divine appointment. — The families of 
the Canaanites were spread abroad ; but they did not 
hold Canaan as their land in the time of Abraham; 
but ]\Ioses calls it ' the land of Canaan' at that time 
by way of anticipation. Melchizedek, a priest of the 
most high God, and who probably was no other than 
the patriarch Shem himself, was king of Salem at 
that time. Many of the Canaanites who were in the 
land at the time of Joshua's invasion probably 
escaped aiul wandered abroad. — Therefore the Ca- 
naanites probably 'spread themselves abroad' in 
Africa.'' 

Now the division of the earth in the time of Peleg 
may have been by divine appointment under the 
direction of Noah; but Abulfaragi was not there as 
the clerk of that court; and it is onl}" a piece of de- 
cej^tion, not intended, I presume, to represent that 
the division as described by Abulfaragi was made by 
divine appointment. On the contrary we have an 
authentic record of this division on the authority of 
divine inspiration in the 10th chapter of Genesis, 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 91 

wherein Palestine is expressly assigned to tlic Ca- 
naanites, and not a word is said about India — at 
least as far as we know. " The families of the Ca- 
naanites were spread abroad, and the border of the 
Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar 
and Gaza; as thou goest unto Sodom and Gomorrah, 
and Admah and Zeboim, even unto Lasha." So runs 
the text. And this unquestionably was very nearly 
the boundary of what we call Palestine. But the 
author of the " Yiew" has a very simple device for 
removing out of his way the difficulty arising from 
this text. In the original, says he, the word for 
border is without the definite article ; it should be 
translated, therefore, " a border of the Canaanites," 
and not " the border of the Canaanites." If this were 
^0, it does not appear how it would hinder that the 
Canaanites should have possessed Palestine — Abul- 
faragi to the contrary notwithstanding. But what 
the author expects to gain by this device is, to leave 
the doors open for the Canaanites to spread else- 
where, viz., into Africa. But in truth the device 
itself is one of the most astonishing pieces of gram- 
matical criticism that ever proceeded from the pen 
of a learned Bishop. Why, every tyro in Hebrew 
syntax knows that the Hebrew article is regularly 
omitted — its force being implied — in constructions 
similar to that in question, i. e., before substantives 
rendered definite by a following genitive; as, " tlio 
word of God,'^ "the border of Canaan,'' — unless the 
substantive, having occurred before, is repeated. 
The instances in illustration are innumerable. I se- 
lect a few, and these exclusively connected with tho 
use of this particular Hebrew word for "border:" 
Joshua xiii. 23, " tho border of tho children of lieu- 



92 S O U T H E R N S L A V E R y. 

ben," and " the border thereof;" xv. 1, " the border 
of Edom;" xvi. 5, ''the border of the children of 
Ephraim," twice; xvii. 8, " the border of Manasseh;" 
also in xix. 10, xviii. 25, xxxiii. 41, &c. &c. jSTow in all 
these cases the Hebrew has no article, and in all but 
one the Septuagint has it, as well as the English. 
Such are the facts. What then can it mean that a 
learned Theologian, an astute and practised polemic, 
a Doctor of divinity, a Bishop of the Church, should 
gravely tell his confiding readers that, as the article 
is omitted before the Hebrew word for border^ it 
should be translated " a border" instead of " the bor- 
der?" Did he learn this new rule of the Hebrew 
article from " reading newspapers and novels," or 
from conning his Hebrew " Bible ?" Will he, perad- 
venture, prove it by the authority of the Early 
Fathers ? Is he really ignorant of the first princi- 
ples of the language in which he undertakes to offer 
his magisterial criticisms, or ? It is most cha- 
ritable to adopt the former alternative. — And thus 
the Canaanites are left in Palestine, in spite of Abul- 
faragi ; and shut up there too, in spite of the absence 
of the Hebrew article from their " border." How 
are they to spread into Africa ? 

If Palestine was not called " the land of Canaan" 
in Abraham's time, it certainly was so called some 
hundred years afterwards; for Joseph's brethren ex- 
pressly describe themselves as coming from " the 
land of Canaan," (Genesis Ixii., &c.) ; and could not 
have called it so by anticipation. Moreover, when 
Abraham was there, "the Canaanite was then in the 
land," and the cities of the plain were cities of the 
Canaanites; and we are told on good authority that 
Abraham did not have possession of it, — even if it 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 93 

had been assigned to Shem, — " for God gave him 
none inheritance in it, no not so mnch as to set his 
foot on." And when Sarah died, Abraham found 
himself without even a spot of his own wherein to 
bury his dead; and he purchased a lot for a burying 
place — of whom ? — of the sons of Heth, who was a 
son of Canaan. The story of the purchase presents 
a most exquisite picture of primitive and patriarchal 
courtesy and gentleness, on the one side and on the 
other. JN^othing can exceed the dignified self-respect 
of one party, the kindly sympathy of the other, and 
the gentlemanly politeness of both. Abraham evi- 
dently had not got into his head the idea that these 
sons of Heth were an utterly accursed race. 

As for Melchizedek, king of Salem, after all is said, 
there is nothing whatever beyond the sheerest con- 
jecture and petitio principii, to show that he was not, 
as his residence would indicate, and as Dr. Hales 
thought, a Canaanite. I can easily conceive the 
horror that any contemner of negroes and retailer 
of the " curse of Ham" must feel, at the suggestion 
that he who was greater than the patriarch Abra- 
ham, and to whom the patriarch paid tithes, was a 
veritable descendant of Ham, an accursed Canaanite. 
Yet on the face of the history, this would seem the 
most likely conclusion ; and it is confirmed by the 
fact that in Joshua's time the name of the king of 
Jerusalem was Adonizedek, meaning '• lord of right- 
eousness." The similarity of this name to Melchi- 
zedek, " king of righteousness," is striking and sug- 
gestive, — the more so, if the commonly received 
conjecture be well founded, that Salem and Jerusa- 
lem were the same place. Still it must be admitted, 
not only in respect to this but to all other conjectures 



94 SOUTHERNS L AVERY. 

as to Melchizedek's kindred, that, in fact, the Scrip- 
ture leaves him without assigning father or mother, 
genealogy, birth or death. 

Let Melchizedek therefore pass. It will hardly 
be denied that Eahab the harlot was a Canaanitess ; 
and, if she was, then some of the Canaanitish blood 
flowed in the veins of our Blessed Lord — one of the 
accursed race was his mother. What more horrible 
than that ? Moreover, it seems that Judah married 
a Canaanitish woman ; and that it was only the 
severest Divine threatenings that could stay the fre- 
quent intermarriages of the Israelites with the tribes 
of Canaan. If the Canaanites were indeed negroes, 
the antipathy of colour and the horror of amalga- 
mation seem not to have arisen at that early period. 

Of any wandering abroad of the Canaanites who 
escaped the sword of Joshua, there is not the slight- 
est mention or intimation in the Scripture. We 
might admit, however, that some of them may have 
taken refuge at Sidon or among the Philistines; but 
that they peopled Africa, except as a few perhaps 
among the Carthaginian colonists, is a j^ure fable, as 
sheer and original an invention as the new rule for 
the use of the Hebrew article. 

And thus, whether the negroes are the descendants 
of Ham or Shem, it cannot be shown either that the 
curse of Canaan attached to any of the other poste- 
rity of Ham, or that the negroes are descended from 
Canaan himself IS'either of these propositions has 
any reasonable degree of evidence or of probability. 
And if either or both of them icere true, it would not 
reach the point in question, which is, whether the 
Southerners are justified in holding the negroes in 
slavery. Now, even though the negroes were cursed 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 05 

ten times over, it would not follow that we or any- 
body else should have a right to make them our 
slaves, and thus fulfil the curse. 

God had threatened Israel and Judah with punish- 
ment and captivit}^ AYas, therefore, the king of 
Assyria justified in destroying the kingdom of Israel 
and desolating Judca ? God himself declares that he 
Avill punish him for these very deeds of pride and 
cruelty, because, while he thus fulfilled God's right- 
eous purpose, '''yet he meant not so, neither did his 
heart think so, but it w^as in his heart to destroy and 
cut off nations not a few." Isa. x. 5-15. 

Many fearful curses were denounced by Moses 
against the Israelites, in case they should forsake 
their God. Were European Christians therefore jus- 
tified in fulfilling them by the cruel and inhuman 
oppression of the Jews in the middle ages ? Joshua 
cursed the rcbuilder of Jericho, saying : " Cursed bo 
the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildcth 
this city Jericho : he shall lay the foundation thereof 
in his first born, and in his 3'oungest son shall he set 
up the gates of it." Would any man, therefore, have 
been justified, who should have taken it into his 
head, either wantonly, or from malice or selfishness, 
to murder the sons of the man whom he might see 
rebuilding that city? Clearly not; and neither is 
the " curse of Ham," or the " curse of Canaan," what- 
ever it may have meant, and to whomsoever it may 
have applied, any authority or justification for "sla- 
very as it is maintained in the Southern States." 

But an argument is drawn for its justification from 
the example of Abraham and the provisions of the 
Mosaic law. Before examining tlio validity of this 
argument, let us sec more exactly what it is which 



9G SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

is to be thus justified. What is Southern slavery ? 
Let it answer for itself, and let the answer be in the 
words of the unanimous decision of the Supreme 
Court of North Carolina, solemnly delivered by 
Judge Rufiin, in 1829 : 

" The question before the Court has indeed been 
assimilated at the bar to the other domestic rela- 
tions; and arguments drawn from the well estab- 
lished principles which confer and restrain the au- 
tliority of the parent over the child, the tutor over 
the pupil, the master over the apprentice, have been 
pressed on us. The Court does not recognize their 
application. There is no likeness between the cases. 
They are in opposition to each other, and there is 
an impassable gulf between them. The difference 
is that which exists between freedom and slavery, 
and a greater cannot be imagined. In the one, the 
end in view is the happiness of the youth, born to 
equal rights with that governor. . . . With slavery it 
is far otherwise. The end is the profit of the master, 
his security, and the public safety; the subject, one 
doomed in his own person and his posterity, to live 
without knowledge, and without the capacity to 
make anything his own, and to toil that another 
may reap the fruits. . . . The obedience of the slave 
is the consequence only of uncontrolled authority over 
the body. . . . The power of the master must he absolute^ 
to render the submission of the slave perfect. I must 
freely confess my sense of the harshness of this j^ro- 
position. I feel it as deeply as any man can. And 
as a principle of moral right, every man in his re- 
tirement must repudiate it. But in the actual con- 
dition of things it must be so. There is no remedy. 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 97 

This discipline belongs to the state of slavery. It is in- 
herent in the relation of master and slave.'' 

There you have Southern slavery, in its true cha- 
racter, in 'puris naturalibus, as depicted by its own 
hand. All those analogies — as that of husband and 
wife, parent and child, tutor and pupil, master and 
apprentice, master and servant, — by which the ad- 
vocates of slavery so often sophistically attempt to 
hide its deformity, to soften down its inhuman and 
immoral features, or to throw dust into the eyes of 
those who are looking to see what it is, are here for- 
mally and authoritatively, — and I must add, hon- 
estly, — cast off and utterly rejected. " There is no 
likeness between the cases ; there is an impassable 
gulf between them," says the Court. Yes, " an im- 
passable gulf," — the same difference as between 
paradise and hell. Slavery is a thing sid-generis. 
]^ow let the moralist look at it, and say whether 
such an institution is right and just, or whether it is 
a wrong and a sin. Let the Christian look at it, and 
say whether he can believe that such a system is 
consistent with the principles of the gospel of Jesus 
Christ. Yet such is slavery, as " maintained'' — main- 
tained by law, — in North Carolina; and the same 
principles are adopted, more or less expressly, in all 
the other slave States. "As a i:>rinciple of moral 
right," says the North Carolina Judge, " every per- 
son in his retirement must repudiate it." But, saj'S 
the "Christian Bishop," "it is fully authorized by 
both the Old and the New Testament ;" and, from 
his retirement in Vermont, he is ready to anathema- 
tize all those who protest against such a sentiment. 

Compare such slavery, with the kind of servitude 
exemplified in the following scene from the history of 



98 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Abraham : "And Abraham was old and well stricken 
In age : and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all 
things. And Abraham said unto his eldest servant 
in his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I 
pray thee, thy hand under my thigh : And I will 
make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, 
and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a 
wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites 
among whom I dwell : But thou shalt go unto my 
country, and to my kindred, and take a Avife unto 
my son Isaac." Genesis xxiv. 1-4. "And the servant 
took ten camels, of the camels of his master, and 
departed ; (for all the goods of his master were in 
his hand ;) and he arose, and went to Mesojootamia, 
unto the city of ]^ahor. And he made his camels to 
kneel down without the city by a well of water, at 
the time of the evening, even the time that women 
go out to draw water. And he said, O Lord, God 
of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good 
speed this day, and show kindness unto my master 
Abraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; 
and the daughters of the men of the city come out 
to draw water. And let it come to pass, that the 
damsel to whom I shall say. Let down thy j^itcher, 
I pray thee, that I may drink ; and she shall say, 
drink, and I will give thy camels drink also : let the 
same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant 
Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast 
showed kindness unto my master." Genesis xxiv. 
10-14. 

If Judge Euffin has defined what slavery is, most 
certainly St. Chrysostom was right in saying that 
Abraham did not treat his domestics as slaves. 

As to Hebrew servitude under the Mosaic law, not 



SLAV^ERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 90 

much need be added to what has been already said. 
The author of the " Yiew" tells us that " the Jewish 
doctors have the best right to be heard in the inter- 
pretation of their own law." Of the jorecept, in 
Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, against returning fugitive slaves, 
Maimonides observes : " Beside the act of mercy, it 
has this further beneficial result — that it teaches us 
to accustom ourselves to virtuous and praiseworthy 
actions, not only by succouring those who have 
sought our aid and protection, and not delivering 
them into the hands of those from whom they have 
fled, but also by promoting their comfort, doing them 
all manner of kindness, and not injuring or grieving 
them even in word." How different this from the 
spirit of one who cautions us against listening to 
the stories of fugitives, or showing them any sym- 
pathy ! AYhich spirit would most become " a servant 
of Jesus Christ V 

The wisest and best among the Jews have been 
accustomed to construe the Mosaic code as, in spirit, 
forbidding slavery. " Our sages," says Maimonides. 
" ordered us to make the poor and orphans our do- 
mestics, instead of em2:)loying slaves. . . . Every one 
who increases his slaves does day by day increase sin 
and iniquity in the world." 

The Eabbi Mielziner, one of the best modern 
Jewish authorities, says: "No religion and no legis- 
lation of ancient times could, in its inmost spirit, be 
BO decidedly opposed to slavery, as was the Mosaic ; 
a religion which so sharply emphasizes tlie high 
dignity of man as a being made in the image of God, 
a legislation based upon that very idea of man's 
worth, and which, in all its enactments, insisted not 
only upon the highest justice, but also upon the ten- 



100 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

derest pity and forbearance, especially towards the 
necessitous and unfortunate; a people, in fine, which 
had itself smarted under the yoke of slavery, and 
had become a nation only by emancipation, would 
necessarily be solicitous to do away wherever it was 
practicable with the unnatural state of slavery, by 
which human nature is degraded." It is remarkable 
that the beautifully humane and gentle features 
which abound in the Mosaic institutions, and which 
are thus urged by the Jewish Eabbi to show that a 
law of such a spirit cannot be supposed to authorize 
such a system as slavery, slavery proj)er, modern 
chattel slavery, Judge Euffin's slavery, — the very 
same exquisitely refined and delicate touches of 
kindly sentiment are alleged by the " Christian 
Bishop" to show that such a law having authorized 
slavery, slavery cannot be so very harsh and inhu- 
man a thing ! Suppose he should undertake to prove 
to me from the word of God that there is no pain in 
the toothache ; should I believe him while my head 
was throbbing with the agony ? or should I not 
rather as a good Christian — not to say a pious Jew — ■ 
presume that his interpretation of God's word must 
somehow or other be wrong? 

According to the current tradition, the Greek 
translation of the Old Testament, called the Septua- 
gint, was made by seventy-two of the most learned 
of the Jewish elders in the time of Ptolemy Phila- 
delphus. If, therefore, the authority of Jewish doctors 
is to be regarded, that of the Septuagint must be 
allowed great weight in determining the proper 
meaning of the original text in relation to the matter 
in hand. Now the Septuagint version docs not re- 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 101 

cognize Hebrew servitude as slavery at all, either in 
the case of Hebrew or foreign servants. 

The original Hebrew Avord for " servant," as I 
have said, means etymologically a labourer ; and has 
a variety of applications, — to slaves, to bondmen 
from other nations, to Hebrew bondmen, to house- 
hold servants, to waiting men and women (especially 
young), to the ministers and oflicers of kings, &c., to 
the priests, projDhets, ministers and worshippers of 
God. Its proper meaning, therefore, is expressed, 
not by the specific term slave, but by the general 
term servant. 

The force of this statement would not be dimin- 
ished if, in the tenth commandment and throughout 
the Pentateuch, the Septuagint had used, for this 
Hebrew word, the stronger, but still general, Greek 
term, meaning etymologically bondman. Indeed this 
is whai; we should naturally have exj^ected them to 
do.* The reader will find, however, in the note be- 

* But this they have not done. It is remarkable that, in their 
version of the Pentateuch, — while they hnve freely used the 
Greek 6ov\oi as the translation of the Hebrew Ebcd, when referring 
to Egyptian bondage, or to bond-servants among the heathen, — 
they have always employed n-aij (boy, lad, gar9on) or naiSiaKn (girl, 
maid) or otKCTm (domestic) when referring to the servants of the 
Hebrews, whether of foreign or of Hebrew origin, and never 
dov\os or 6ov\n. To this I have found but one, and that only 
an apparent, exception. It occurs in Lev. xxv. 44, 46. " Both 
thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be 
of the heathen that are round about you ; of them shall ye buy 
bondmen and bondmaids." (46.) "x\.nd ye shall take them as an 
inheritance for your children after you to inherit them for a pos- 
session ; they shall be your bondmen forever." 

Here, in verse 44, "bondmen and bondmaids," in the first 
clause, are rraida and KadiaKat, and, in the last clause, after "buy," 
0* 



10-J S U T li E R N S L AV E RY. 

low, the evidence from which it will appear that tho 
Septiiagint regarded Hebrew servitude as of a pecu- 
liarly mild type; that is, in their judgment, there 

they are Sov\oi and ^ovXai. But this exception only proves the rule ; 
for it plainly proceeds upon the implication that they have been 
the servants of others before, and are bought as being already 
iovXoi and hovXai. In verse 46 they arc called neither naiScf nor 
6ov\ot, but Karoxoi, vv'hich simply regards them as a confirmed pos- 
session. It is moreover observable that the Septuagint, in con- 
formity with the etymology of the original word, very frequently 
use epya instead of hovXtia for bondage, even for Egyptian bondage ; 
— thus in Ex. i. 14, &c., &c., we have, for *'hard bondage," spya 
oK^ripa — "hard works," or "hard labour." ' 

It is true that, when the Septuagint have translated the Hebrew 
"word for "serve" by a verb, they have commonly employed ^ouXcuw, 
when the service was paid to men, (and another word when it was 
paid to God.) But this is apparently for Avant of any softer verb 
in the Greek language appropriate to their purpose. Thus, Gen. 
XV. 13, "Thy seed shall serve them four hundred years;" Gen. 
XXV. 23, " The elder shall serve the younger," [where slavery is 
not meant]; Gen. xxix. 18, "I will serve thee seven years for 
Rachel." Inverse 27, this service is called by Laban epyaaia ; and, 
in Gen. xxx. 26, it is called by Jacob (JouAtca ; — it being presumed 
by the translators that Laban would be disposed to extenuate, 
and Jacob to magnify its hardship. Ex. xxi. 2, " A Hebrew ser- 
vant, »atj, shall serve, iovXemei, six years," So Deut. xv. 12. Lev. 
XXV. 39, " Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant," 
— ov 6ov\cvaci aoi 6ovi\uav oikctov. But in verse 40, they have returned 
to the etymology of the original word. " He shall serve cpyarai — 
(work for) thee, unto the Jubilee." It is hardly necessary to add 
that, in the tenth commandment, the Septuagint always use, not 
^ovXoj and hov\ri, but 7ra«j and natStaKn- In the "curse of Canaan," 
also, they translate by naig, oiKerrn, and not iovXog. 

It is not intended here to intimate that natj is never applied in 
Greek to designate a slave, but it is a milder term than SovXoi, — 
just as, in English, man, or lad, or servant, is a milder term than 
slave, — and as such was chosen by the Septuagint to indicate the 
milder character of Hebrew servitude or domesticity. 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 1U3 

was, properly speaking, no such thing at all as He- 
brew slavery, certainly no such slavery as that char- 
acterized by Judge Euffin. It should be called, not 
even Hebrew servitude^ but rather Hebrew domesticity. 

By the law of Moses, the murder of a servant was 
punished, and the punishment for murder was death. 
As much miirht be said for the laws of the Southern 
States; but all such nominal protection of personal 
rights becomes a practical nullity and a mocker}-, 
since no evidence of slaves or of blacks is admitted 
against a white person. 

By the law of Moses the testimony of servants was 
valid ; at least, no exceptions are made to the precept 
that the testimony of two men is true. And if any 
of the Jewish doctors have held a different view, it 
has been under the influence of the prejudices and 
customs of the Eoman law. 

The Hebrew law treated the servant as a person, 
and vindicated for him the rights of a husband and 
a father. But, after the precedent of the Eoman 
legislation, a slave's marriage, in the Southern States, 
is, in law, a nullity; and, in practice, husbands are 
sold away from their wives, children from their pa- 
rents. There " the human cattle are bred like sheep 
or swine for the market; in short, the whole system 
is a standing defiance of nature and humanity.'' 

The Hebrew servant had the Sabbath infallibly 
secured to him for a day of complete rest. IS^ot so 
with the Southern slave. There may bo some " law" 
for it, but " no testimony" annuls it. 

The Hebrew servants shared in the religious rites 
and festivities of their masters. They were circum- 
cised; they ate the passover, which no stranger or 
hired man was allowed to touch. They took part, 



104 SOUTHERN S JUVV E R Y. 

side by side with their masters, in the most solemn 
acts of national worship. What an instructive pic- 
ture is the following : "And thou shalt keep the feast 
of weeks unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a 
free-will offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give 
unto the Lord thy God, according as the Lord thy 
God hath blessed thee. And thou shalt rejoice before 
the Lord thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daugh- 
ter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and 
the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, 
and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among 
you, in the place which the Lord thy God hath chosen 
to place his name there. And thou shalt remember 
that thou w^ast a bondman in Egypt : and thou shalt 
observe and do these statutes. Thou shalt observe 
the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that thou 
hast gathered in thy corn, and thy wine. And thou 
shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy 
daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-ser- 
vant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the father- 
less, and the widow that are within thy gates : seven 
daj^s shalt thou keep a solemn feast unto the Lord 
thy God in the place which the Lord shall choose: 
because the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy 
increase; and in all the works of thine hands, there- 
fore thou shalt surely rejoice. Three times in a year 
shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in 
the place which he shall choose ; in the feast of un- 
leavened bread, and in tlie feast of weeks, and in the 
feast of tabernacles : and they shall not appear before 
the Lord empty : Everyman shall give as he is able, 
according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which 
he hath given thee." Deut. xvi. 10-17. 

" The bondman came up to stand with the freeman 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 105 

before the Lord. The gift of the bondman"— and it 

seems he could have something of his own to o-ive 

"was mingled with that of the freeman, and was 
equally accepted. Perfect religious equality was thus 
proclaimed, and that in a commonwealth of which 
religion was the foundation, and of which Jehovah 
was king. JSTo cruel division of classes, no aristo- 
cratic pride on one side, or degradation on the 
other," not to sa^ chattel-slavery, — " could well hold 
its ground against such a law.'' Compare this pic- 
ture with that drawn by Judge Euffin, and say whe- 
ther the law of Moses " fully authorizes slavery as 
it is maintained in the Southern States." In the 
words of Cochin : by the Mosaic code, '• the servant 
could have recourse to the law for all wrongs ; his 
testimony was received; he could hold property and 
redeem himself; he was instructed; his rights were 
respected. 'No slave-trade, no fugitive slave law, no 
enslaving of natives; a year of Jubilee; the purity 
of women, the weakness of childhood, the rights of 
manhood placed under the provident protection of 
the law; equality professed, fraternity preached. Such 
was Hebrew servitude. Let the partisans of modern 
slavery cease to seek arguments from it; let them 
rather pattern after it.'* 

But, in fact, whatever may have been the character 
of the bondage in which the Israelites were allowed 
by the Mosaic code to hold persons from the nations 
round about them, — it does not ibllow from it that 
under the new dispensation, and under the circum- 
stances of the present time, we are authorized to 
hold our fellow men even in similar bondage. In 
connexion with this proposition, two points remain 
which 1 have promised further to examine. The 



106 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

first is, the common brotherhood of mankind under 
the Christian dispensation ; the second is, the analogy 
of the law of divorce. 

As to the first point, I understand the author of 
the "View" stoutly and earnestly to deny it; — and 
well he may, if he is to find any support for his pro- 
slavery position in the Mosaic code ; for, otherwise, 
the service of Hebrew to Hebrew would be the 
extreme precedent of the service n^w authorized be- 
tween man and man; and that was neither " a servi- 
tude for life" nor " a servitude descending to the 
offspring," — not to speak of chattelism or of the 
slavery of Judge Eufiin. This is a vital point. "We 
do well to examine it carefully. Says the author of 
the " Yiew," " nothing can be more false than the 
assertion that Christianity has made the heathen 
savage any more our brother than he was the brother 
of the Jew under the Mosaic dispensation." May 
not one be pardoned for expressing his amazement 
and mortification that such a sentiment should be 
uttered by a Christian Bishop ? Can it be in the 
spirit of him who said: "Go ye into all the world 
and preach the Gospel to everj^ creature ?" of him 
" who hath broken down the middle wall of partitioji, 
having abolished in his flesh ihe'eiimity eYcn the law 

of commandments contained Id ordinances 

having slain the enmity by his cross, and came and 
preached peace to them who were afar off and to 
them that were nigh ?" If it be said that " Chris- 
tian brotherhood is by no means denied, but that 
Christian brotherhood is a brotherhood in the Chris- 
tian Church, and not a brotherhood of humanity, — 
that this latter is left just as it was under the Mosaic 
economy;" I answer in the words of St. Peter : " Ye 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 107 

know that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a 
Jew to keep company or come unto one of another 
nation ; but God hath showed me that I should not 
call any man common or unclean." As I look upon 
the savage and remember that Christ died for him — • 
that he was purchased by the same blood whereby 
my soul was redeemed, — shall I regard him no more 
as my brother, than, by the Mosaic law, the Jew was 
taught to regard him as his .^* 

" Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself But 
who is my neighbour? This is the question. The 
Jew found him only in his brother Jew. But our 
Lord told the Jew that the hated Samaritan was his 
neighbour; — told us that whoever is suffering, op- 
pressed, or in want, is our neighbour, if we can reach 
him with our aid. Thus he established the common 
neighbourhood, if not the common brotherhood of man- 
kind. And if it be said that this is but an interpre- 
tation of a previously existing law, in its original 
sense, and no enlargement of that original sense, I 
answer that it could not have been so understood in 
the Mosaic code; for that code expressly makes dis- 
tinctions between Hebrew " servants" and foreign 
" bondsmen ;" so that, if both were equally neigh- 
bours, the Israelites were either required to love the 
Hebrews more than themselves, or permitted to love 

* As to "spiritual brotherhood," — was there no "spiritual 
brotherhood" under the old economy as "well as under the new ? 
The diflference is this: as the spiritual brotherhood of the old 
economy was related to a worldly brotherhood confined to a single 
tribe or people, so the spiritual brotherhood of the new economy 
is related to the worldly brotherhood of all mankind. The Jewish 
brotherhood was gathered from the Jews; the Christian brother- 
hood is gathered out of every nation and people under heaven. 



108 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

the foreigners less. But even granting that the only- 
change which Christianity wrought in this respect, 
was a change from the brotherhood of the Hebrew 
commonwealth to the brotherhood of the Christian 
church; what shall we say, after all, to a Christian's 
holding his brother Christian in slavery^ in perpetual bon- 
dage ? Is that fully authorized by the analogy of 
the Mosaic code ? 

When we allege that the Christian dispensation is 
an improvement upon the Mosaic, or that it does not 
follow that what was allowed under the Mosaic is 
also allowed under the Christian; and instance in 
proof our Lord's express abrogation of the Mosaic 
law of divorce ; — the author of the " Yiew" replies 
that that law of divorce was no part of the law of 
God, but that " Moses wrote it in his human discre- 
tion,'^ while the law .of slavery is of God's own posi- 
tive enactment. How he ascertained this important 
fact, one is curious to know. Of the law of divorce 
our Lord had said : " For the hardness of your hearts 
Moses wrote jow this precept.'^ On this statement 
alone, as far as appears, his proposition rests for its 
verification. " Moses wrote y^ou this precept;" — but 
does it follow that because Moses wrote it, God did 
not command it ? It seems to me that a Christian 
who believes in the divine legation of Moses would 
infer just the contrary. " Moses wrote of me," said 
our Blessed Lord ; are we therefore to j^resume that 
what he w^rote was not by divine inspiration, but 
'^ in his human discretion ?" Did our Saviour or his 
apostles ever make a distinction between the writings 
of Moses and the word of God, between the law of 
Moses and the law of God ? In St. Luke our Lord 
is represented as ascribing the words uttered at the 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 109 

burning bush to the authorship of Moses; in St. 
Matthew he ascribes them to God himself. Thus, 
unless there is other evidence from some other quar- 
ter to support the assumption that Moses wrote the 
precept of divorce '' in his human discretion," the 
words of our Lord cannot be tortured into any 
authority for it, or even as giving any colour to it. 
If other evidence existed, it might then be possible 
that those words should be so interpreted. Is there 
any such evidence in the original text ? In the fifth 
chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses rehearses the ten 
commandments, and adds : ^' These words the Lord 
spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of 
the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick 
darkness, with a great voice : and he added no more : 
and he wrote them in two tables of stone, and deli- 
vered them unto me." The rest of the law, as Moses 
goes on to relate, was given not directly to the peo- 
ple, but through the mediation of Moses, so that if 
one chooses to make a distinction of dignity between 
the Decalogue and the rest of the Mosaic law, there 
may be some reason for it. But neither the law of 
divorce nor that of slavery is found in the ten com- 
mandments. No such distinction, however, can bo 
taken in such a sense as that the rest of the law of 
Moses should not have been also the law of God. 
For as to the rest, Moses declares that God said to 
him : "As for thee, stand thou hero by me, and I will 
speak unto thee all the commandments, and the sta- 
tutes and the judgments, which thou shalt teach 
them, that they may do them in the land which I 
give them to possess it." " Ye shall observe to do, 
therefore," he adds, " as the Lord 3'our God hath 
commanded you." Deut. v. 31, o2. Then in the sixth 
10 



110 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

chapter Moses goes on to say : " JSTow these are the 
commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, 
which the Lord your God commanded to teach you ;" 
whereupon he proceeds to lay down the law of su- 
preme love to Grod, which our Saviour declares to be 
the first commandment of all. He afterwards sets 
before the Israelites a blessing and a curse, " a bless- 
ing if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your 
God which 1 command you this day ', and a curse if 
ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord 
your God." " Ye shall observe to do all the statutes 
and judgments which I set before you this day.'' 
Deut. xi. 27, 28-32. And then he proceeds to say ; 
"These are the statutes and judgments which ye 
shall observe." Deut. xii. 1. And again : " If thou 
shalt keep all these commandments to do them which 
I command thee this day." Deut. xix. 9. And then 
follows a continuous series of precepts up to the 
twenty-fourth chapter, where the law of divorce is 
inserted; followed again continuously by others, 
until chapter twenty-sixth, verse sixteen, where the 
whole is clenched with the declaration : " This day 
the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to do these 
statutes and judgments." And again, " Moses, with 
the elders of Israel, commanded the people, saying, 
keep all the commandments which I command you 
this day." " Thou shalt therefore obey the voice of 
the Lord thy God, and do his commandments and 
his statutes which I command thee this day." "And 
it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently 
unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and 
do all his commandments which I command thee 
this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on 
hiii-h above all nations of the earth." Then follow 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. Ill 

the blessings. " But it shall come to pass, If thou 
wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, 
to observe to do all his commandments and his sta- 
tutes which I command thee this da}^;" — and then 
follow the curses. Deut. xxvii. 1-10, and xxviii. 1-15. 
Now the law in regard to the Hebrew servant is in- 
deed given, in Exodus, in almost immediate juxtapo- 
sition with the ten commandments, Exodus xxi. 2. 
But it is given also among the other statutes and 
judgments in Deuteronomy xv. The law in regard 
to foreign bondmen is given only in Leviticus. But 
nothing can be inferred from juxtaposition in regard 
to the relative importance of laws in the Mosaic 
code. And now, after all these express asseverations 
of Moses in the book of Deuteronomy — " these are 
the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments 
of the Lord your God, which I command you this 
day," — shall a " Christian Bishop,'^ who finds one of 
them lying in the way of his pet theory, take it out, 
and boldly declare that Moses wrote it " in his human 
discretion ?" And shall such a Bishop denounce his 
opponents for their want of reverence for the " word 
of God," and claim to be superlatively orthodox ? 
Shall he rebuke Colenso even ? How much else of 
what " Moses wrote" did he write " in his human 
discretion ?" For, observe, our Lord merely says, 
*' Moses wrote this precept," not that he wrote it " in 
his human discretion." Is it not abundantly evident 
that if the inspired authority of Moses can be relied 
upon as proof that any of the statutes and judgments 
contained in the book of Deuteronomy are from God, 
then the law of divorce is among them ? But because 
our Lord says, "Moses wrote it," therefore he wrote 
it " in his human discretion !" Is it not admitted 



112 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

that Noali uttered the curse upon Canaan? But 
suppose it should be argued that because ISToah, re- 
covering from the effects of the wine, uttered that 
imprecation, therefore he uttered it " in his own dis- 
cretion;" what a fluttering there would be in the 
camp ! What a zeal for the " word of God V What 
a cry of " Colenso !" But I submit that this sugges- 
tion would be as plausible as the other; unless the ^ 
word of God is allowed to be wrested in no direction 
except in favour of slavery. 

If God could have directed Moses to give the peo- 
ple the precept about divorce " for the hardness of 
their hearts," so may he have directed him to give \ 
other precepts; as, for instance, those in relation to 
slavery, for a similar reason ; and that, with a view, 
in both cases, not to establish an evil, but to correct 
a greater one. For in neither case is the thing com- 
mandecl ; it is only suffered, restrained and regulated. 

And this is in perfect accordance with God's ordi- i 
nary proceeding with mankind, and with the gradual 
character of the unfolding of his instructions and 
revelations. The divine legislation, even, as a deve- 
lopment of divine Providence, Avhen intended for the 
formal regulation of man's social and civil relations, 
must be suited to his character, condition, and cir- j 
cumstances; and in that sense will ^^artake of man's 
imperfections, and may itself become more perfect 
as man makes progress in moral culture and social | 
improvement. Not only may the law of divorce, 
therefore, have been given " for the hardness of i 
men's hearts," but those of war also (in Deut. 20) 
and of the Goel, — and of servitude. 

We come now to the New Testament. And here I 
we need add but few words to what has been already ! 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 113 

said in answer to the " letter;" for the " Yiew" adds 
little to the argument, unless it is in the shape of a 
formal defence and eulogy of the Avhipping-post as 
an eminently Christian institution. 

The argument drawn b}^ the partizans of slavery 
from the New Testament, is chie^y of a negative 
character. When carefully analyzed, it is reduced 
substantially to this: "T/ie JVew Testament does not 
expressly abolish or prohibit slavery J' Now it is to be 
remembered that the iSTew Testament is throuirhout 
addressed to individuals and never to governments. 
Slavery, therefore, as a political or civil institution, 
as a system established and maintained by law, of 
course was not abolished. But it does not foHow 
from this that the general principles of Christianity, 
if applied by legislators and governments, would not 
lead to, and require, its abolition. Unlike the men 
to whom our Saviour and his apostles preached, ice^ 
— i. e. men in these times, and in this country, stand 
towards slavery in a twofold relation, as individuals 
and as legislators. As individuals, our duty, now as 
then, is resolvable chiefly into a question of treat- 
ment, of motive, and of personal feeling. As legis- 
lators, we are responsible for the s^^stem, for its legal 
character, its tendency and its working. And when 
slavery is now condemned, it is regarded as well in 
its latter aspect as in the former. It is the system 
that is condemned. It is the law of slavery that is 
pronounced wrong. We are responsible for it in this 
aspect; for, in this country, "we the j^cople" make 
the constitution and the laws as well as keep them. 
We have claimed certain rights ourselves, as the Ycry 
foundation of our civil system; and we are bound by 

the simplest principles of the gospel and of justice 
10* 



114 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

to accord the same rights to others. Of all people 
on earth Christianity especially forbids us to hold 
our fellow men as slaves. This is applicable to the 
people of the several States in their legislative capa- 
city. They profess to be Christian people, and those 
v^ho hold slaves profess to justify the system b}^ the 
principles of Christianity. As moralists and Chris- 
tians, we have a right to judge the system, the legal 
system, by those principles; and if it is inconsistent 
w^th them, to condemn it. The general principles 
of Christianity are modified and determined in their 
application by the mental and moral condition of 
those who are to apply them, by their views of rights 
and notions of happiness, and wherein it consists. 
What they claim for themselves as rights, what they 
regard as constituting happiness, these things they 
are to claim and labour to secure for others as well 
as for themselves. IS'ow among the general princi- 
ples of Christianity are — " Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thyself/' and '' all things whatsoever ye 
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
them ;" and " have not the faith of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Lord of glory with respect of persons." 
Are these consistent with holding our neighbour, 
our fellow man, our fellow Christian as a slave ? If 
we are asked, as we often are, why we apply these 
refined principles exclusively to the system of sla- 
very, while they are violated as often by non-slave- 
holders as by slaveholders ? MVe answer, that we do 
not ai)ply them exclusively to slavery, but we say 
that every violation of them, whenever and wherever 
it is committed, is wrong, is unchristian. " If there 
come into any Christian assembly a man with a gold 
ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a | 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. llf) 

poor man in vile raiment, and they liave respect to 
him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto 
him, sit thou here in a good place; and say to the 
poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my foot- 
stool," — I say, with the apostle James, that they 
violate the Christian law of impartial regard and 
love, whoever and wherever they may be. Eut now 
suppose that assembly should proceed to enact a law 
that any person might take this poor man, drive 
him to the field to work like an ox without wages, 
deprive him of his rights as a man, a husband and a 
father, reduce him to the condition of a chattel, a 
thing^ for the profit of his master, to be *' doomed in 
his own person and his posterity to live without 
knowledge, and without the capacity to make any- 
thing his own, and to toil that another may reap the 
fruits;" and suppose that other assemblies and other 
men professing to be Christians, and even a " Chris- 
tian Bishop," should approve the act, and gravely 
and pertinaciously defend it as "fully authorized" 
by the doctrine and religion of Jesus j — what then ? 
If I condemned before, what shall I do now? Shall 
I restrain my expression of " indignant reproba- 
tion ?" Even though all actual treatment were loft 
out of the question, though no man were found bad 
enough to carry such an enactment into effect, could 
we fail to denounce the enactment itself as utterly 
unchristian and abominable ? And would it mend 
the case if those Christians should add the mockery 
of admitting that man to come by himself to the 
Holy Communion ; while they gravely enact that, 
though a communicant in the church, his testimonj^ 
upon oath is not worthy to be believed? AVhon it 



116 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

was proposed to receive such testimony even in the 
Ecclesiastical courts of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, the proposition was rejected through the 
urgency of the slaveholding interest, who treated it 
as a piece of " dirty business." 

ISTow, all the immense array of citations in expo- 
sition of the Scripture, from the Fathers, the doctors 
of the church, and the commentators, collected by 
the author of the " Yiew," — with a single exception, 
perhaps, — go not an iota further, than a defence and 
justification of the New Testament in not abolishing 
the law of slavery. That it sanctioned and approved 
of that law as such, they do not pretend ; it only re- 
quired the law to be obeyed while it existed. Their 
address, too, is made to individuals. Of course they 
aim, therefore, at treatment, at practice under the 
law. They, too, require servants to obey their mas- 
ters ; and they require masters to treat their servants 
not as slaves but as brethren. 

If the JSTew Testament approved and sanctioned 
any slavery, as a legalized system, it approved and 
sanctioned Eoman slavery. Hebrew slavery no longer 
existed to be either sanctioned or abrogated. Now 
the system of Eoman slavery was perhaps the most 
outrageously cruel and inhuman that ever existed. 
Moreover, it was a slavery of whites. Can a Christian 
believe that Christ and his apostles approved and 
sanctioned such slavery as that ? Approved and 
sanctioned it, moreover, in such a sense, as fully to 
authorize and justifj^it among Christians, at the pre- 
sent day ? If I understand the author of the " Yiew," 
he believes it; believes that the Southerners would 
be fully authorized by the doctrine of the New Tes- 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 117 

tament in reducing to slavery any whites — of an 
inferior race to themselves, perhaps, — whom they 
might judge proper; and takes great credit for them 
in having restrained this large Christian liberty of 
theirs within such narrow bounds as to content them- 
selves with having for their slaves only the still more 
degraded and vastly inferior race of the blacks ! 
Though after all, if slavery is so good a thing, and 
withal so perfectly right and Christianlike, one does 
not see why there should be any credit due to its 
restriction. 

But let us remember that the exigence of the ar- 
gument required him to maintain that holding white 
men in slavery is fully justified by the New Testa- 
ment, and that he accepts the consequence. The 
author of the " Yiew" quotes Aristotle. Compare 
St. Paul with Aristotle. 

As good an argument could be made, and has been 
made, from the precepts of the New Testament, in 
favour of the duty of passive submission even to the 
most tyrannical governments, as can be made in 
favour of the right of slavery. When St. Paul de- 
clared that " the powers that be are ordained of God,'' 
and required all Christians religiously to obey them, 
the government actually existing was the tyranny 
of Nero. That tyranny he neither undertook to 
abolish nor even to condemn. Did he therefore fully 
authorize and justify it ? Or, because he did not 
condemn it, are we also, in a free country, forbidden 
by the apostle to criticise the laws of the land and 
the acts of the government, and to condemn them, 
if in our judgment they are wrong? Or, still more, 
has he established the doctrine that the government 



118 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

can do no wrong, that the idea or judgment of wrong 
cannot attach to its acts, that if the Law establishes 
anything— slavery, for example— that this, by virtue 
of the very fact that it is established by the law, is 
right ? Has the apostle announced any such mon- 
strous doctrines as these ? Certainly not. Simply 
he did not address governors, or judge governments, 
or criticise laws. It was not the time to do so. Our 
circumstances are different. ^Ye have, as I have said, 
responsibilities^n our capacity of law-makers as well 
as of law keepers. We are the governors as well as 
the governed. The apostle does indeed give his com- 
mands to masters as well as to servants, and enjoins 
them in substance, not to treat their servants as 
slaves. But, it is quickly urged, " he does not require 
them to emancipate them." True, he is willing that 
the relation of master and servant should practically 
as well as legally remain. He sanctions it, I have 
no doubt, and it will always continue a rightful re- 
lation. But from this it no more follows that the 
apostle sanctions slavery than from his declaring 
government to be a divine institution, it follows that 
he sanctions tyranny. 

In short, all these negative arguments from the 
New Testament in favour of the law and practice 
of slavery, vanish away as smoke before the general 
spirit and tendency of its teaching. Let any one 
place distinctly before his mind a picture of Eoman 
slavery, or such an idea of Southern slavery as is 
given in the delineation of Judge Euffin, and let him 
compare them — compare those concrete, practical 
realities, and not any carefully analyzed and expur- 
gated abstractions — with the tone and character of 



SLAVERY AND THE SCRIPTURES. 119 

the doctrine of Christ and his apostles; and let him 
ask himself whether the two agree, whether they 
are compatible, whether such ruthless systems are 
" fully authorized" by this doctrine ; — and I cannot 
doubt as to what will be his answer. He will say, 
no, with all the energy of his soul; — and, it seems to 
me, he cannot fail to stamp any opposite view with 
his "indignant reprobation.'' 



CHAPTEE V. 

SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 

THAT the Christian Church has not adopted or 
acted upon the doctrines of the " ultra-aboli- 
tionists," i. e., of those who insist upon the immediate, 
universal, absolute, and formal abolition of slavery 
as the first and greatest commandment of Chris- 
tianity, is freely admitted. But that either the teach- 
ing, the spirit, or the practical working of the church, 
has been opposed to emancij^ation, and in favour of 
maintaining and perpetuating the system of slavery, 
cither as right, as good, or as a divine institution, — 
is utterly denied. The church has attacked slavery 
not in the abstract but in the concrete, not in its 
totality but in its details, not by storm but by a 
gradual undermining, not at first by an open decla- 
ration of war, but always with a consciousness of 
real antagonism, as in the presence of a gigantic 
evil, of a monstrous and almost unmanageable wrong. 
Before Constantine the church stood in the same 
jDOsition towards slavery and the Eoman government 
in which the apostles had left it. That is to say, the 
church could not meddle with the law ; she had no 
control over the legislative function, and it were 
useless as well as dangerous formally to have pro- 
nounced the law to bo wrong. She therefore at- 
tacked, not the law, not the system, but the practice. 

(120) 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 121 

She still required Christian masters to treat their 
slaves, not as slaves, but as equals and as brethren, 
and strongly favoured emancipation. For, as "Wallou 
says, in his history of slavery, within the pale of the 
church, " the slave passed from the category of things 
which the right of property placed at the disposal 
of the master." Said Clement of Alexandria, " Our 
household servants are to be treated like ourselves, 
for they are men as well as we."* And Cyprian thus 
taunts his Pagan adversary : " You compel to be 
your slave a man who was born as you were, who 
dies as you do, whose body is made of the same sub- 
stance with your own, whose soul has the same origin 
with yours, who has the same rights and is under the 
same law." (Cyp. ad Dem.) 

" That these principles were carried into practice 
in the church, we have the evidence of credible his- 
tory. For though the number of slaves set free by 
individual masters may be exaggerated — as when 
Ovinius of Gaul is said to have emancipated five 
thousand and Melanius eight thousand, — that very 
exaggeration in the popular tradition shows the 
tendency of Christianity towards universal emanci- 
pation."f 

"A Koman prefect, Hermas, converted in the reign 
of Trajan, 98-117, received baptism at an Easter 
festival with wife and children, and twelve hundred 
and fifty slaves, and on this occasion gave all his 
slaves their freedom and munificent gifts besides. 
So in the martyrolog}'- of St. Sebastian, it is related 

* PteJag. 3. 12. de famulis quidem utcndum est tanquam nobis 
ipsis ; sunt enim homines sicut nos. 

I Thompson's Christianity and Emancipation. 
11 



122 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

that a wealthy Eoman prefect, Chromatius, under 
Diocletian (284-305), on embracing Christianity, 
emancipated fourteen hundred slaves, after having 
them baptized with himself, because their sonship 
with God put an end to their servitude to man. In 
the beginning of the fourth century, St. Cantius, 
Cantianus, and Cantianilla, of an old Eoman family, 
set all their slaves, seventy-three in number, at 
liberty, after they had received baptism. After the 
third century the manumission became a solemn act, 
which took place in the j)resence of the clergy and 
the conccreiration. The master led the slave to the 
altar; there the document of emancipation was read, 
the minister pronounced the blessing, and the con- 
gregation received him as a free brother, with equal 
rights and privileges. Constantine found this custom 
already established, and African councils of the fourth 
century requested the Emperor to give it general 
force;"* for as the law stood then, the rights of the 
freedman were quite insecure. 

As a further indication of the tone of Christian 
feeling on slavery, take the following from Lactan- 
tius : " We call ourselves brethren, for no other 
reason than that we hold ourselves all equal. . . . We 
have, notwithstanding the difference of outward re- 
lations, no slaves, but we call and consider them 
brethren." .... " Grod would have all men equal." 

Such was the spirit of early Christianity. But to 
have required all Christian masters to emancipate 
their slaves would have been unreasonable ; for as 
several laws were then made to restrain and prevent 
emancipation, it might have been impossible. 

* Schaflf: Hist. Churcli. 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 123 

After the conversion of Constantino the case was 
different. But Constantine, though converted to 
Christianity, was, like most other Christian princes, 
controlled in his government, more by political than 
by moral or religious considerations. And the leaders 
and governors of the church, who had now become in 
no small degree corrupted by a ^i^orldly spirit and 
the prospect of increasing powder, fell in, quite too 
readily, with the political views of the Emperor, 
and even stood ready to take their share of the gain 
and spoil. 

Still, the spirit of Christianity could not be entirely 
stifled, and its influence is seen in the changes made 
by Constantine in the imperial laws; ameliorating 
the condition of the slave; encouraging emancipa- 
tion by a solemn decree that masters wishing to free 
their slaves might resort to the churches and perform 
the act before the altar, and in the presence of the 
congregation; and issuing a charter for the protec- 
tion of freedmen, which surrounded their rio-hts with 
all possible means of defence. And thus, as the Duke 
de Broglie finely says, " the church was invested with 
a sort of official patronage for the enfranchisement 
of mankind. The places consecrated to the Chris- 
tian faith became the asylums of liberty — the invio- 
lable free soil. The church at this solemn moment 
accepted from God and from Constantine the task 
of emancipating the world without overturning it."* 

AVhatever the Fathers may have said, and rightly 
said, in imitation of the apostles, guarding against 
encroachment upon the legal rights of the masters, 
and enjoining obedience uj^on the servants, none of 

* Thompson's Christianity and Emancipation. 



124 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

them ever wrote expressly in favour of the system 
of slavery, none of them ever could have been, with- 
out a revolution of his whole Christian being, the 
author of such a book as this modern " Yiew of Sla- 
very." I propose to pass in rapid review the cita- 
tions from the civil law, the Councils, the Fathers 
and Doctors of the Church, upon which the author 
of the " Yiew" relies. I will take them in his own 
order. 

In his citations from the civil law, I observe (1.) 
that liberty is called a " natural faculty;" (2.) slavery 
is declared to be a " constitution of municipal law^ 
whereby, contrary to nature^ one man is subjected to 
the dominion of another;" (3.) "manumission is a 
thing which has its origin in municipal law; for, since 
by the law of nature all would be born free, both sla- 
very and manumission would have been unknown;" 
(4.) " manumission takes place in various ways, either 
hy the sacred constitutions in the holy churches, or by 
will," &c. (5.) "In case of the intolerable cruelty of 
masters, the slave shall be sold," &c. 

That men, by the law of nature, "jure naturali" are 
free — are born free, is here asserted almost as plainly 
as in the Declaration of Independence ; and slavery 
is declared to be an artificial distinction, contrary to 
nature, contra naturam, a creature of positive law. 

Again, I observe, the same constitution of the civil 
law which rejects the testimony of slaves, rejects 
alike the testimony of all immoral persons, or slaves 
to vice ; those who " in illicitarum actionum servi- 
tutem subiguntur" — a point which the author of the 
" Yiew" found it convenient, in his text, to omit. 
Also, which strongly shows the leaning of the later 
civil law in favour of liberty, it is declared in a de- 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 125 

crce of Leo — that the selling of one's self into slavery 
is void, criminal in both parties, and the act of one 
elemented and mad. 

As to the doctrine of Aristotle, which has always 
been a favourite text with oligarchists, that " some 
men arc/ree by nature, and others are slaves, and that, 
in the case of the latter the lot of slavery is both 
advantageous and just;'^ it is manifestly at war not 
only with the teaching of the Scriptures but with 
the principles of the civil law and with the dictates 
of humanity ; and even Aristotle relented so far as 
elsewhere to indicate that if a slave were mentally 
cultivated so far as to be fitted for freedom he ought 
to be set at liberty. On this philosophy of the Stagi- 
rite the Southern slaveholders rest their plea. " The 
general emancipation of the negroes," say they, 
'' would not OJily be ruinous to the masters, but cruel 
to the last degree towards the slaves themselves; 
bcciiusc it would thrust into the dangers and diffi- 
culties of freemen millions of human beings who are 
entirely unfitted by nature for freedom, and wlio need 
the protection and government of their masters even 
more than the masters need their labour. And there- 
fore they resist the policy of abolition," — and there- 
fore these millions of negroes are, generation after 
generation, to be raised, bought, sold, and treated 
like cattle, carefully kept in universal ignorance, 
and sunk in one vast system of concubinage, so that 
men and wives, parents and children, may be separ- 
ated without compunction ! What insull'erable men- 
dacity and hypocrisy ! Have these slaveholders 
arranged their laws with a view to improve and ele- 
vate "the nature" of these millions of human beings 
and thus fit them for froodom ; or to prevent, rather, 
11 - 



12G SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

any such elevation or improvement, and to proscribe 
any attempts towards it ? And can tliey really pre- 
tend to say in the face of heaven, that their motive 
in opposing abolition, and perpetuating, at all haz- 
ards, the system of slavery, is more to secure the 
highest good of the slave than the gain to be derived 
from his labour ? 

Let the Supreme Court of N^orth Carolina answer 
this question : " The difference,'^ say they, " is that 
between freedom and slavery, and a greater cannot 
be imagined. In the one, the end in view is the 
happines of the youth," &c. ..." with slavery it is far 
otherwise. The end is the profit of the master, his 
security and the public safety; the subject, one 
doomed in his own person and his posterity to live 
without knowledge and without the capacity to 
make anything his own, and to toil that another 
may reap the profits." 

Yet the author of the " View" expressly subscribes 
to the Southern Aristotelian argument as unanswer- 
able. "Am I justified," says he, "in assuming that 
I have a vast deal more of intellect and Christian 
principle than the Southern clergy, who defend their 
domestic institution on these grounds, of scrij^ture, 
of law, and of sound philosophy ? Can I say to them, 
Stand by, for I am holier than you? Stand by, for I 
am more intellectual than you ! Stand by, for I have 
more philanthropy than you ! Stand by, for I have 
the master mind by nature, and your minds ought to 
be, in justice, the slaves of mine, by reason of my su- 
periority ! . . . . I must be excused if I dare not 
occupy a position which seems to me the very re- 
verse of common sense, of sound argument, and of 
Christian moderation." What beautiful Christian 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 127 

humility ! — ono is ready to exclaim. But unfortu- 
nately the rule does not work both ways; for it 
makes a vast difference whose ox is gored, yours or 
mine. Could it have been expected that such a 
lowly-minded person would denounce the expressed 
judgment of a large body of his brethren as "false, 
bitter, insolent, unjust, vituperative, calumnious, 
violent, aggressive, demented?" Is it credible that, 
being a Bishop, and differing in judgment from the 
House of Bishops in regard to.the performance of a 
certain official act, he should, publicly and alone, 
have separated himself from the body of his brethren 
and official equals, as much as to say, " Stand by, for 
I have the master mind by nature, and your minds 
ought to be, in justice, the slaves of mme, by reason 
of my superiority V Of course, this must be an 
utterly groundless and slanderous report. 

I proceed with the citations. The words of Philo 
are clearly in favour of freedom, and the rights of 
humanity as natural rights. " The divine law,'' says 
he, " accommodates the rules of right, not to fortune 
but to nature.'^ 

Tertullian, in speaking of the stealing of a slave, 
has clearly in view the taking him from one man to 
make him — not free — but the slave of another; — 
'^domino eripiatur ut alii vijidicetur." This he con- 
demns; — and who does not? 

Jerome (Note 17*) represents the slave as the 
equal of his master — yet not to despise him : " ^Yc' 
sibi acqualcm conte?nna7it." 
• The remaining two quotations from Jerome require 

* The numbering of the note in the Appendix to the "View" is 
followed, for the sake of easy reference. 



128 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

no comment ; and I shall omit others of a similar 
character without farther remark. 

The supposititious Ambrose (No. 20) derives sla- 
very "from the iniquity of the world;" hut adds 
that the real, natural^ proper slave is the sinner. 
Anti-slavery men will subscribe to that. 

Augustine (No. 22) says that the church makes 
masters more disposed to " consult for the good of 
their slaves than to chastise them," — ad consulendum 
quam coercendum — which the author of the "Yiew" 
rather whimsically translates, *' more inclined to 
consult than to coerce them." 

In the next quotation (No. 23) Augustine shows 
only the natural effect of stri^^es, not the right of 
inflicting them. 

When he says (No. 24) that '' it is either adversity 
or iniquity that has made one man the slave of an- 
other," and afterwards refers to Joseph, does he 
mean that the enslaving of Joseph was just? When 
slavery is the punishment of crime duly ascertained, 
it is not objected to by abolitionists ; only the chil- 
dren should not suffer for the crimes of their parents. 

His saying (in No. 26) is striking, and very much 
to our purpose. " Masters and servants are diverse 
names; men and men are equal names." * Thus Au- 
gustine recognizes the existence of slavery; — that is 
not at all denied. But he turns his face against it; — 
that is to be remembered. And this is but an in- 
stance of the common fact with the Christian fathers. 

Does Basil mean (No. 29) that those who are 
'' oppressed by power," as well as those who are 

* Sunt domini, sunt et servi, diversa sunt nomina ; sed homines 
et homines paria sunt nomina. 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 120 

" reduced to servitude by reason of poverty, as tho 
Egyptians under Pharaoh," are rightfully made 
slaves; so that the Israelites also were rightfully 
made slaves to the Egyptians ? 

A specimen of Chrysostom's over-refinement is 
given (in No. 30) in reference to the apostolic in- 
junction "use it rather;" 1 Cor. vii. 28. But Chry- 
sostom frankly admits a diversity of opinion on the 
question, and candidly gives, not his authority, but 
his reasons. Of the sufficiency of these we are left 
to judge. He has himself given sufficient proof, as 
we shall show elsewhere, that he was no friend to 
slavery, but that he decidedly favoured emancipa- 
tion. But what use would there have been in eman- 
cipating Christian slaves, if it was their Christian 
duty rather to remain in slavery ? If the injunction 
"use it rather" means "use slavery rather," it must 
be given by the apostle, either, as Poole suggests, in 
the sense of "prefer to continue a slave rather than 
be guilty of /rawc?," or with a view, as the apostlo 
elsewhere says, " of the present distress," and must 
be put by the side of his injunction to avoid mar- 
riage. 

Prosper (No. 31) says expressly, " slavery comes 
from C7ime (culpa), not from nature." How will Aris- 
totle stand with the Fathers of the Church? 

Gregory (No. 32) simply makes maids and matrons 
equally slaves, for he makes them both fear. And 
what of it ? 

This Father (No. 33) teaches natural equality in 
the clearest terms. " Servants," says he, " should 
be admonished in one way, and masters in another; 
servants that they should always regard in tliem- 
selves the humility of their condition, but masters 



130 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

that they should not forget their nature^ whereby they 

were created on an equaliiy with their servants 

Masters are also to be admonished that against Grod 
they do not wax insolent with his gift, by refusing 
to acknowledge that those whom they hold in pre- 
sent condition as their slaves are by the fellowship of 
nature their equals.'*- 

l^ow here are the so much decried propositions of 
the Declaration of Independence in almost express 
terms ; and that at once in spite of Aristotle, and 
of the charges of extravagance and nonsense so often 
indulged in against them by those who think them- 
selves exceedingly clear headed and wise.f It has 
often been charged upon the Declaration that all 
that is true in its first proposition is the bald and 
empty statement that " all men are equally created." 
Yet this unmeaning statement the author of the 
" Yiew" does not hesitate, in his translation, ex- 
pressly to father upon Gregory. I submit that the 
connexion shows, and, without the connexion, the 
supposition that Gregory was not a simpleton would 

* Aliter admonendi sunt servi, atque alitei' domitii. Servi, 
scilicet, ut in se semper humilitatem conditionis aspiciant: do- 
mini vero, ut naturas suae qua aequaliter sunt cum servis conditi, 

memoriam non amittant Domini quoque admonendi sunt 

quia contra Deum de munere ejus superbiunt, si eos quos per 
conditionem tenent subditos, sequales sibi per naturte consortium 
non agnoscunt, 

f The charges do not always stop with *' extravagance and 
nonsense." Dr. Smyth, a prominent rebel of South Carolina, in 
a pamphlet upon this subject, says: "What is the difficulty and 
what is the remedy ? It is found in the atheistic, red republi- 
can doctrine of the Declaration of Independence ! Until that is 
trampled under foot, there can be no peace." With which does 
the "Christian Bishop" more nearly coincide, with the primitive 
St. Gregory, or with the rebel Dr. Smyth ? 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. l3l 

show, that he meant something more than that. By 
" asqiialiter conditi sunt," he must have meant that 
men are made of equal condition, or on a footing 
of equality. 

As an offset to the deed (No. 34) by which Gregory 
renounces in favour of Felix all legal right to a slave 
who had already been a long time in possession of 
the latter, I may insert another and far more signifi- 
cant deed of the same Gregory manumitting two 
persons who had been his slaves : "As our Redeemer, 
the Maker of every creature, was pleased in his 
mercy to put on human flesh, that by the grace of 
his divinity he might break the bonds that hold us 
captive, and restore us to our pristine liberty, it is 
fitting and salutary that men whom nature in the 
beginning made and brought into the world free, but 
whom the law of the land has subjected to the yoke 
of servitude, should be restored by the benefit of 
manumission to liberty in that nature in which they 
were born. Moved by this consideration and as a 
dictate of piety, you, Montana and Thomas, I have 
made free,'' &c.* 

Isodore tells us (No. 35) that " for the sin of the 

* Cum Redemptor noster totius conditor creaturoe ad hoc pro- 

pitiatus humauam voluerit carnern assumere, ut divinitatis sua) 

gratia diruto quo tcnebamur captivi vinculo servitutis, pristina) 

nos restitueret libertati; salubriter agitur, si homines quos ab 

initio natura creavit liberos et protulit, et jus gentium jugo sub- 

stituit servitutis, in ea natura in qua nati fucrant, maiuiinitten- 

tis beneficio, libertati rcddantur. Atque ideo pietatis intuitu, et 

hujus rei consideratione permoti, vos Montanam atque Tliomam 

famulos Saucta) Romanaj Ecclesias cui Doo adjutore deservimus, 

liberos ex hoc die civesque Romanos eflicimus, omueque vestrum 

vobis relaxamus servitutis peculium. 

Greg. I., V. Ep. 12. 



\M SOUTHERN SliAVEllY. 

ili'st man tho piinislnnont of Bervitiidc was divinely 
iin})()so(l, so thai. U) tlioso I'or whom CJoil sees thai 
lihcM'ly is not congnioiis he may more mercifully ap- "^ 
poiul sorviluile. . . . Jlenee, also, among nations, 
])riiicos niul kings havo boon chosen that by their 
terror liu>y miglit restrain the peo]>le from evil, and 
suhjet't them to laws to the end they should live 
rightly. Better is tho subjection of slavery than tho 
eialioii of liberty."* 

Ol' course servitude for tho good of tho servants, 
as government for the good of the governed, is 
right; but this will justify neither all systems of 
government, nor all systems of slavery. 

The canon (No. 30) that slaves should not he or- 
dained without the will of their masters, implies that 
ordinations of slaves to the ministry not untVequently 
took jdace, and that tho ct)nsent of Christian masters 
would be gladly given of course, in all proper cases. 

The cunoii (No. 87) which enjoins, ''let the master 
love his servant, and although he is above him, j^et 
let hin\ acknowledge that there is equality in so far 
as he is a man,"f contains another clear recognition 
of human equality, of the natural equality of man 
as )i}(i». 

4'he anathema of the council of (langra only as- 
sumes the duties of slaves, — the same duties which 
the a])ostle had expressly enjoined, and which Chris- 
tian anti-slavery men are far from denying. Only, 

"'^ Propter pcocnhim primi hoiniuis Iminano goiiovi pixMia dlvi- 
uitus illuta ost servitiitis, ita ut «]uibus aspicit non congruero 

libertatom. liis niisorioordius in-t>,i;ct sovvilutiMn liulo et iu 

gtMitibus priiicii>on, rogosquc elocti t<imt ut tovrorc siio populos a 
mail) coorocroiit, atquo ad rocto vivomliuu logibus siibtloront. 

f Jiulioct tamcn esse aequalitatcm, vol quatouus homo est. 



SLAVERY AND THE CnURCII. 133 

perhaps, tho injunction might be strained too far 
in its application; as to say, for example, that a 
Christian being a slave to a Turk, and treated with 
outrageous cruelty, he should not leave his master's 
service though he had an opportunity to escape. 
Even the law, " thou shalt not kill," yields to tho 
necessity of self-defence. 

The decree of the council of Agde (No. 39) im- 
plies that the manumission of deserving slaves by 
the Bishops of churches is presumed as the regular 
thing. The churches, it is to be presumed, took 
slaves for this purpose, i. e., for the training and 
benefit of the slaves, not from motives of cupidity; 
consequently, even while they were held, they were 
not held as slaves, — Judge Eufiin's slaves : — or, if any 
churches did otherwise, they certainly did wrong. 

The canon of Orleans* (No. 40) is translated in 
the " Yiew" as follows : " The slave who has taken 
refuge in the church for any transgression, if he has 
received the sacrament after the admission of his 
fault, shall be compelled to return immediately to 
the se'rvice of his master." Thus a domino is entirely 
ignored, and ^ro is translated " after." But suppose 
the slave has not received and refuses to receive the 
sacrament, " after the admission of his fault," what 
then ? Shall he find an asylum in the church ? If 
so, it would not seem difficult for him to avoid being 
sent back to his master. I suspect the sense to be, 
"provided he has received an oath from his master 
for the fault he has committed ;" L e., a solemn pro- 
mise of forgiveness on the master's part, and of 

^ Servus qui ad ecclesiam pro qualibct culpa confugcrit, si a 
domino pro admissa culpa sacramenta suscipcrct, statirn ad sor- 
vitium domini sui rcdirc cogatur. 
12 



134 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

amendment on his own, confirmed perhaps by a com- 
mon participation of the sacrament. 

As to two years' excommunication for killing a 
slave (No. 41) ; is it a precedent for us ? Is it just 
and equal ? Estimating men's lives at different values 
was a barbarous custom of the Middle Ages. Does 
Christianity or the church require it to be restored ? 
If not, what is the value of this decree of the coun- 
cil of Epone ? What else does it show except that 
the church was then degraded and corrupt, and her 
moral judgment not to be relied upon ? 

In translating the canon of Orleans (Ko. 42), what 
the author means by " the masters' sustaining the 
benefit of redemption," I am quite too dull to appre- 
hend. I suspect the meaning of the canon is, sub- 
stantially, " that the slaves of the church or of the 
priests should not be allowed to plunder or take 
captives, because it is not reasonable that the eccle- 
siastical discipline should be stained by an excessive 
accumulation of slaves, while the masters are accus- 
tomed to afford them the favour of redemption." 
If something like this is the sense of the canon, of 
Avhich I would not be sure, it shows that it was usual 
for masters to emanci2:)ate their slaves, or to redeem 
slaves that they might set them free. 

When a slave was to be ordained (I^o. 43), nothing 
was more reasonable than to require the consent of 
the master as a proof of proper character. And ob- 
serve that in the case of a freedman the consent of 
his former master is required, for a similar purpose. 

The canon of the council of Macon (No. 44) allow- 
ing the Christian slave of a Jew to be extorted from 
his master at a fixed price, is as clear a departure 
by the church from the apostolic precept, as any act 



SLAVERY AND THE CIIUllCK. 135 

of emancij^ation with nominal compensation could 
ever be. 

The canon of Toledo (No. 45) proves nothing but 
that, in the corruption of the times, the churches 
themselves held slaves, and that they were some- 
times disturbed in their possession by civilians. 

The canon of Karbonne (No. 46) also recognizes 
undoubtedly the existence of servitude. It forbids 
a slave to yoke oxen on Sunday. But what if his 
master should require it ? Is there any danger that 
the Southern slaves should yoke oxen on Sunday if 
not required ? How strange for such a mandate to 
be issued to the slave and not to the master, threat- 
ening the slave himself with punishment for disobe- 
dience ! 

The council of Berghamsted in 697 (No. 47) re- 
cognizes manumission at the altar, i. e., as a reli- 
gious act. 

The canon of Aix la Chapelle (No. 48) is largely 
copied from Isidore (see No. 35). Divine Provi- 
dence is vindicated; which may be well in answer 
to any who are disposed to charge the Almighty with 
the sin of slavery. But is, or is not, '-liberty con- 
gruous" for those who are true Christians? Is it 
right that such should be held in perpetual, hopeless 
bondage? 

The Capitulary of Louis the Pious (No. 49) is 
harmless. Shaves were not to be Christian ministers. 
That was felt to be dangerous ; therefore they were 
to be set free before ordination. Fraud was, of 
course, enou<rh to show that a man was unfit for the 
ministry. 

The canon of AVorms (No. 51) contains an express 
provision for the emancipation of skives by the churchy 



136 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

without the consent of the masters.* Which was 
right, this, or the earlier canons which forbade it ? 

l^ext comes the famous canon of the council of 
London in 1011, in the following words : 

" Let no one by any means presume henceforth to 
engage in that nefarious traffic, by which, hitherto, 
men have been accustomed to be sold, like brute 
beasts, in England." 

The Bishop of Oxford had appealed to this canon 
as "the rule of the church'^ on both sides of the At- 
lantic; but the Bishop of Yermont, in his zeal to 
show that the church has never committed herself 
against " the nefarious traffic whereby men are sold 
as brute beasts," contends that this canon has no 
binding force; for he has discovered that Anselm, 
then Archbishop of Canterbury, in sending to the 
Archdeacon William a statement of the matters 
treated of in this council, has omitted this alleged 
canon altogether. Whether this omission was acci- 
dental or designed does not appear. If it was de- 
signed, either Anselm meant to give a list of such 
canons only as he himself officially sanctioned (" nos 
decrevisse^'), or this omission can scarcely be recon- 
ciled with the simple truth. But, in any event, 
although the precise point of the Bishop of Oxford, 
touching the legal validity of the canon, may be 
parried, its weight in the present argument is 
scarcely at all diminished. Its moral force still re- 
mains, as an expression of a feeling which must have 
been widely prevalent in the church to have found 
utterence in this form, even though it were not ex- 
pressly confirmed by the authority of the Archbishop. 

* Si servus, absente vel nesciente domino suo, episcopo autem 
sciente quod servus sit, diaconus aut presbyter fuerit ordinatus, 
ipse in clericatus officio permaneat. 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 137 

Gregory Nazianzen (^N^o. 54) makes provision in 
liis Avill for citlicr the speedy manumission of the 
slaves or their enjoying the comparatively comfort- 
able service of the church. 

Saint Perpetuus (N'o. 55) directly liberates his 
slaves, and gives his books to the church. 

"Alcuin (No. 56) had the disposal of the revenue 
of his abbeys, and as their estates were peopled with 
serfs, Elipand of Toledo reproaches him with having 
as many as twenty thousand." This surely does not 
imply that the prevailing Christian sentiment re- 
garded it as any credit to a Bishop to have even this 
class of bondmen. 

The request of the council of Soissons (No. 57) 
aims at an episcopal encroachment upon the tem- 
poral lords; but, after all, demands the right to 
punish only for crime. Would it, in the view of the 
Bishop of Vermont, be particularly desirable for 
Bishops now to have the right to " scourge the pea- 
santry with rods V 

Pope Benedict, in his decree (Xo. 58), would mani- 
festly, as his primary object, punish the clergy for 
having wives or concubines, by making their chil- 
dren slaves, — certainly a most unchristian proceed- 
ino- in motive and in means. Benedict did not ima- 
gine, probably, that there would ever arise men who, 
of their own accord, would hold, sell, and bequeath 
their own children as slaves. But of what authority 
is this decree? AVhat does it prove? — that the 
churches held slaves? That is admitted. The ques- 
tion is, is it any authority for justifying that fact? 
At all events, it recognizes slavery as an evil— as a 
punishment for crime; every principle of justice 
12* 



138 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

must therefore pronounce it a wrong when inflicted 
upon the innocent. 

The general principle of Melanchthon (No 59) wo 
may still adopt without hesitation. But he evidently 
goes too fVir — farther than he himself really thought 
of going — when he says that "slavery was approved 
(by the apostle Paul) such as it was then described in 
the laws.""^ I trust that even the author of the 
" View" will not admit that the apostle approved of 
the system of Roman slavery as it was maintained 
b}^ law. " It is in vain one looks for anything like 
common human feeling in the Roman slave-law of 
republican times and that of the early empire," — 
and this was the time of St. Paul. " The slave was 
a chattel, had no individuality or ' caput,' his union 
with a wife was no marriage, his master might tor- 
ture or kill him at will, the modes of torture were 
various and cruel, and the ordinary punishment of 
death was crucifixion. The breaking uj:) of slave 
families was entirely in the hands of the merchant 
or owner; husband might be separated from wife, 
and mother from children, all dispersed and sold off 
into the houses of strangers and to foreign towns. 
In the eye of the law slavery was equivalent to 
death, for the law does not recognize the existence 
of the slave; it entirely avoids and annuls the con- 
tract of a master with his slave, gives the slave no 
action at law against him, and compels female slaves 
to surrender themselves to their mastefs Itist against their 
w?i7Z/'f and, it maybe added, that, in case a master was 

* Approbari servitutem, qualis tunc in legibus descripta fuit. 

t Ddlli7iger, on the Roman Law, in " The Gentile and the Jew," 
Vol. II., p. 259. 

See also Dr. Taylor's Elements of the Civil Law, p. 429; and 
Cooper's Justinian. 



SLAVERY ANT) THE CHURCH. 1 39 

killed by unknown hands, it required all the slaves 
of his household, which were sometimes several hun- 
dred in number, without trial and without distinc- 
tion, to be put to death. Surely Melanchthon never 
meant that St. Paul approved such a legal system as 
that. And I should be equally sure that the author 
of the " Yiew'' does not in his heart and conscience 
approve it, or think that St. Paul approved it, 
were not some misgiving created by the fact that 
this system so closely resembles the system of South- 
ern slavery, which he has declared to be, in his 
opinion, " fully authorized by the 'New Testament." 
Melanchthon may have been led to express himself 
too strongly by the tendency which prevailed among 
the Protestants at that time, and which arose natu- 
rally from their zeal against the spiritual and tempo- 
ral tyranny of the Pope, to go quite to an extreme 
in courting the civil power. But who will now go 
with Luther in sanctioning the double marriage of 
the Elector of Hesse, or even in his doctrine that a 
Christian slave had no right to escape from a Turkish 
master ? 

Calvin only suggests (No. 60) what may or may 
not have been the apostle's reasons for his well- 
known injunction. 

His exposition (in 61) is good; that even unbe- 
lieving masters — even those who are themselves 
slaves to the devil, are to be obeyed ; — but to what 
purpose is this towards justifying those who servo 
the devil in holding Christians in slavery? 

According to Calvin (No. 62), it was not onl}- as a 
mnaway slave, but as having been a thief, that Onesi- 
mus was sent back to his master to be forgiven. 

So Poole (No. 63), "Servants believing in Christ 



140 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

are not taken from unwilling masters," is freely ad- 
mitted. But should not believing masters be willing ? 
willing to receive them " no longer as servants, but 
as brethren beloved ?" 

That " Christian liberty (No. 64) is consistent with 
political servitude, and that by Christ political states 
are neither destroyed nor changed," will scarcely be 
denied even by the "ultra-abolitionist." 

The father (Ham) (No. 66) was undoubtedly pun- 
ished by the curse upon the son (Canaan); but the 
suggestion of the commentator, about Moses' having 
omitted a part of Noah's imprecation /or certain poli- 
tical reasons, is, to say the least, not very respectful 
to Holy Scripture. 

Probably the Israelites (No. 68) may have bought 
slaves of the Cuthseans (Cushites) as well as of other 
nations. But Maimonides must not be supposed to 
mean that the Israelites had (especially) negro slaves. 
He is speaking of the circumcision of servants; and 
he specifies the Cushites, because they were uncir- 
cumcised, while the Egyptians, Edomites, &c., were 
circumcised already. There is no reason to suppose 
that the Israelites or Maimonides thought particu- 
larly of Ham or of the descendants of Ham, in con- 
nexion with the purchase of slaves. 

" Thou shalt not covet," &c. — "By these words of 
the law," says Poole (No. 70), " are especially estab- 
lished the dominion and property of the things which 
it is not lawful to covet; servitude, moreover, and 
the master's power." Yes, the right of a man to his 
ox (as an ox), to his servant (as a servant), and to 
his wife (as a wife), is doubtless hereby recognized 
and established ; but propeiiy in the servant is no 
more recognized than in the wife ; neither is reduced 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. Ill 

to the level of the ox and the ass; neither is made a 
chattel. Observe Poole says property in things (pro- 
prictas reriim), but the poiver of the master (hcrilis 
potestas). 

Poole's interpretation (No. 71) of Deut. xxiii. 15, 
forbidding the surrender of fugitive slaves to their 
masters, may be correct. That is to say, the Israelites 
were not to deliver up the fugitive slaves of those 
over whose laws of slavery they had no control. 

The interpretation (No. 72) of Exod. xxi. 16, for- 
bidding man-stealing, is not so clear. It by no means 
follows, from the more restricted precept of Deut. 
xxiv. 7, that this general statute has no wider an 
application. The two are not at all inconsistent, and 
both can be understood literally just as they stand, 
the one forbidding the stealing of an Israelite, the 
other forbidding the stealing of any man. Or is it 
insisted upon, that, though the Israelites were for- 
bidden to steal any of their brethren, they were 
nevertheless allowed, by the clear implication of the 
Divine law, to steal as many as they pleased of other 
nations? To suppose this is hardly consistent, at 
least, in those, (if there be any such,) who maintain 
that the precept, " thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
thyself," was originally intended to be understood 
by the Jews in the same broad and impartial sense 
in which our Saviour interpreted it. 

Poole gives (Xo. 73) a very strange comment or 
reflection, in noting as a proof of the poverty of 
those who returned from the captivity, the small 
number of their servants. But it by no means ap- 
pears that even tliese servants were all slaves. They 
may have been Hebrew domestics, reduced to ser- 
vice in consequence of their poverty, so that the 



142 S O IJ T II E R N Hi, AY K RY. 

more of them iliere .sliuuld luivc been, the greater 
the proof of the poverty of the returninoj Jews. See 
Jer. xxxiv. 11. The Ile))re\v words ia Jeremiah lor 
man-servants and maid-servants — these all being 
Hebrew servants^ — are the same as in the tenth eom- 
mandment. 

Tims I have examined all the authorities relied 
upon by Bishop Hopkins to prove his conclusions 
that slavery — such slavery as is maintained in the 
Southern States — is right, is a blessing, is ai)i)roved 
and sanctioned, and defended by the church in all 
ages. I have not intentionally omitted any citation 
or any point that seemed to mo particularly to favour 
his views, and I confidently appeal to the reader for 
the result. Do these authorities bear out the allega- 
tions? Observe the}^ are the best and strongest that 
could be picked and culled from all ecclesiastical 
history. Is it not abiindaiill}' evident, after all, llmt 
the spirit of the church, and of her great writers, 
has been always anti-slavery? I have cross-ques- 
tioned the JMshop's own chosen witnesses ; and I 
might safely rest the cause here. But I will summon 
a few testimonies on the other side, and they^ need 
bo but few. 

1 begin with Chrysostom. — " Think not," ho said, 
Hom. ad Ephes. xxii., " that God will forgive you an 
injury done to a slave, because he is a slave. The 
laws of this world draw distinctions between men, 
because they are made by men; but the law of our 
common Lord knoweth no such distinction, and dis- 
penseth the same blessings equally to all. liut if any 
one ask whence came slavery into the world ? — for I 
know many who have desired to learn this, — 1 will 
tell him. Insatiable avarice and envy are the parent.^ of 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 143 

slavery ; for Noah, Abel, and Scth, and their de- 
scendants, had no slaves. Sin hath begotten slaver}^, 
— ^then wars and battles, in which men were made 
captives. But ye say that Abraham had slaves. Yea, 
but he treated them not as such.'^ 

Hom. in Lazar. 6. " There was no slave in the old 
times; for God, when he formed man, made him not 
bond but free." 

Ilom. in 1 Cor. 40. " Slavery is the punishment of 
sin, and arose from disobedience. But when Christ 
appeared, he removed this curse ; for ' in Christ Jesus 
there is neither bond nor free.'" 

Ilom. in Tit. 4. '' It is usual to say that slaves are 
a shameless race, difficult to be governed or led, and 
not fit to be instructed in godliness. It is not their 
nature which rendereth them such, God forbid ! but 
the negligence of their masters, who care for nothing 
but that themselves should be well served ; or, should 
they ever attend to the morals of their slaves, only 
do so for their own advantage, that less trouble may 
be thereby occasioned them, not really caring wlie- 
ther they be given up to fornication, theft, or drunk- 
enness." 

Hom. in 1 Cor. 40. When rebuking the rich and 
the noble, who sought to make a display by keeping 
a number of slaves, and who appeared surrounded 
by a swarm of them in the market-places, theatres, 
and baths, which at times gave them the appearance 
of supporting so many slaves from philanthropy, ho 
said: " If ye cared for these men, ye would buy them; 
let them learn trades, that they might support thcin- 
selves; and then give them freedom." 

In another place, while representing the commu- 
nion of possessions of the first apostolical congrega- 



144 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

tion at Jerusalem as an example for the Christians 
at Antioch, and supposing the case of their following 
it, he said : (Hom. in Act Apost. 11) " How much gold 
would be collected together, if every one sold his 
lands, possessions, and houses, and brought the prices 
of them hither, — I speak 7iot of the sale of slaves, for 
that did not exist in those times, though jperhaps their 
masters were pleased, to set them free.'" "^ 

In a discourse on pride and avarice, St. Augustine 
says : "A Christian ought not to exalt himself above 
other men ; for God gave thee to be over the beasts. 
You ought to seek to have all men equal to yourself. 
But man transgresses the bounds of moderation ; 
and, in his excessive greed, he who was made over 
the cattle seeks to be over men ; — and this is very 
pride.^'f 

In another sermon, describing a manumission in 
church as if it were a thing of course, he says : — 
'* What thou canst do for thy servant, thou doest, 
thou makest him free." 

Addressing a friend who held a part of an undi- 
vided estate in which certain slaves were included, 
he says : " This is the business, let this be carried 
through without delay, let those slaves be divided 
and manumitted," &c. 

In a discourse on the Sermon on the Mount, he em- 
phatically declares : "A Christian ought not to hold 
a slave like a horse or like money. For man ought 
to love man as himself" — Who is my neighbour? 

* Et TTavTti KUL TTatrai dvrwv cvravda tKCVdsaav xprifxara, Kai X^pta xai 
KTrifiara kui oKiaj arreoovro (^di^Spanaia yap 6vX dv etnoifti, dvde yap rort ;)i/ 
Tovro, dXX' iXevOepovi iircjj iirerpenou ytPtadai). — Neander^ S ChrysostOVl, 

pp. 413-416. 

t Aug. op. Tom. III. 2040, V. 145, 1576, III. 1260, VII. 243. 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 145 

In his Civitus Dei, he says : " In the house of tho 
jiTst man who lives by faith, even those who com- 
mand are servants to those wliom they seem to com- 
mand ; for they govern neither from a lust of enact- 
ing the master but as an opportunity of doing good, 
nor from domineering pride but from provident 
pity.'* And again : " This natural order prescribes, 
for so God made man (Gen. i. 26) ;lie would not that 
a rational being made in his own image should have 
dominion (be master) over any but irrational crea- 
tures, not man over man, but man over cattle." And 
once more : "As regards the worship of God, wherein 
eternal goods are to be hoped for, the just Fathers 
consulted for all the members of their households 
with equal love." 

Said Gregory of Nyssa : " God said, let us make 
man in our image. Him who is made in the likeness 
of God, who rules over the whole earth, who is 
clothed by God with power over all things on tho 
earth; tell me, who is it that sells or buys such an 
one ? . . . IIow shall that be sold which is above tho 
whole world and all that it contains ? For it is ne- 
cessary also to sell his faculties; and at what price 
will you estimate the mind of man, that rules tho 
world ? Though you should have named the whole 
world you would not have told its price; for ho who 
knows man hath said, that the whole world is not 
enough to give in exchange for the soul. AVIien, 
therefore, a man is exposed for sale, notln'ng less is 
brought into the market than the lord of the earth." 

Gregory goes on to argue tlic equality of masters 

and servants: " They have the same affections of 

mind and of body, the same joy and sorrow, tho 

same ])leasurc and pain, ti)e same anger and fear, 

13 



146 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

and are subject to the same sickness and death. They 
breathe the same air, behold the same sun, have the 
same vital organs, are nourished by the same food. 
After death, master and slave become alike dust; 
they stand before the same judge ; their heaven and 
hell are the same."* 

St. Isidore of Pelusium, like Clement of Alexan- 
dria, says that " servants should be treated even as 
ourselves, because they are men like ourselves." And 
again, in his epistle to Ironis : " For I know not how 
one who loves Christ, who has known and expe- 
rienced that grace which has secured freedom for us 
all — can hold a slave.^^-\ 

In the eighth century, Theodore Studita, who was 
at the head of a monastery, writes : "A monk should 
never possess a slave, either for his own service or 
for the service of the convent, or to cultivate its 
lands; for the slave is a man created in the image of 
Godr 

And in the twelfth century, at the council of Ar- 
magh, in Ireland, " the Bishops declared that the 
misfortunes of their country were the just punish- 
ment of the perpetuated crime of slavery," and 
freed all captives held as slaves. "What a lesson this 
for us ! and it comes from Ireland. 

A bull of Pope Gregory ^Yl. interdicts all eccle- 
siastics from venturing to maintain that the traffic 
in blacks is permitted under any pretext whatever ; 
and from teaching in public or in j)rivate, or in any 
way whatever, anything to the contrary." 

* Works of Gregory, p. 406. 

■}■ Neque enim Christi amantem Ironem, qui cognitam et explo- 
ratam earn gratiam liabeat, quae omnes in libertatem vindicavit, 
fumulum ullum habere arbitror. 



SLAVERY AND THE C H U R C IT . 147 

Las Casas, the stout champion for the freedom of 
the Indians, is often charged with having favoured 
the slavery of the negroes. 

Las Casas, unfortunately for his reputation, added 
to a scheme which he proposed, the provision that 
each Spanish resident in Ilispaniola should have 
license to import a dozen negro slaves. 

The origin of this suggestion w^as, as he informs 
us, that the colonists had told him that, if license 
were given them to import a dozen slaves each, they, 
the colonists, would then set free the Indians ; and 
so, recollecting that statement of the colonists, he 
added this provision. Las Casas, writing his history 
in his old age, thus frankly owns his error: "This 
advice that license should be given to bring negro 
slaves to their lands, the Clerigo Casas first gave, 
not considering the injustice with which the Portu- 
guese take them and make them slaves ; which ad- 
vice, after he had apprehended the nature of the 
thing, he would not have given for all he had in the 
world. For he always held that they had been 
made slaves unjustly and tyrannically." 

Hear the following abolition sermon from a very 
renowned Portuguese preacher, Yie^^ra, in 1653 : 
" But you will say to me, this people, this republic, 
this State cannot be supported without Indians [L e., 
slaves.] Who is to bring us a pitcher of water or a 
bundle of wood ? Who is to j)lant our mandioc ? 
Must our wives do it ? Must our children do it ? In 
the first place, as you will presently see, these are 
not the straits in wliicli I would place you; but if 
necessity and conscience require it, then I reply, 
yes ! and I repeat it, yes ! you and your wives and 
your children ought to do it. Wo ought to su^iport 



148 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

ourselves with our own hands; far better is it to bo 
supported by the sweat of one's brow [to be " mud- 
sills"] than by another's blood. O ye riches of Mar- 
anham ! What if these mantles and cloaks were to 
be wrung? they would drop blood."* What if such 
sermons had been ringing from every Christian pul- 
pit North and South for the last thirty years, instead 
of the church being gradually muzzled by "political 
expediency?" — Perchance our slaveholders would 
think such preaching to savour of abolitionism or 
of politics, or even to be absolutely incendiary. 

Hear Las Casas announcing as his " authorities" 
for a sermon on " the Feast of Pentecost," the fol- 
lowing from the thirty-fourth chapter of Ecclesias- 
ticus : 

" He that sacrificeth of a thing wrongfully gotten, 
his offering is ridiculous; and the gifts of unjust men 
are not accepted. 

" The Most High is not pleased with the offerings 
of the wicked; neither is he pacified for sin by the 
multitude of sacrifices. 

"Whoso brini>:eth an offering; of the ccoods of the 
poor doeth as one that killeth the son before his 
father's eyes. 

" The bread of the needy is their life, — he that de- 
fraudeth him thereof is a man of blood. 

" He that taketh away his neighbour's living slay- 
eth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his 
hire is a blood-shedder." 

I think the clerigo might have dwelt upon one of 
the remaining verses of the chapter with great 
profit : 

* Quoted in Soutliey's History of Brazil, vol. ii., p. 479. 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 149 

" "When one prayeth and another curscth, whose 
voice Avill the Lord hear?'' 

AVhen the j^riest and the Levitc pass by denouncing 
the *' curse of Ham/' and the poor negro sends up 
his heart-cry amidst his toils and stripes and mise- 
ries, which, think you, will Jehovah hear? 

At the end of one of Las Casas's sermons, " all 
were amazed; some were struck with compunction; 
others were as much surprised to hear it called a 
sin to make use of the Indians as if they had been 
told it were sinful to make use of the beasts of the 
field." 

Such is the blinding and hardening effect of slave- 
holding. And had a certain Northern Judge of the 
present day been there, he would have told Las 
Casas that he knew of no Scripture which declares 
it a sin to hold either Indians or negroes as slaves. 

But facts speak louder than words; and, whatever 
may have been the dicta of fathers, or councils, or 
doctors, and although the church was powerless to 
influence the government, before Constantine, and 
rapidly corrupted in its moral sense by its contact 
with a slaveholding aristocracy, afterwards, — still, 
the actual result was, that Christianity had not only 
greatly mitigated, but to a large extent abolished 
Roman slaver}^ before the downfall of the Western 
Empire. 

After that, Christianity had her work to do over 
again with the barbarian conquerors. They estab- 
lished a new system of bondage under the form of 
serfdom. But again, though the church was quite 
too much in sympathy witii tlie feudal lords, the 
silent influence of Christianity had almost entirely 
13* 



150 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

abolished this new form of slavery in Western Eu- 
rope before the sixteenth century.* 

Then appeared a third form of slavery — that of 
negroes — introduced gradually, and almost surrep- 
titiously, into the European settlements in America, 
and enlisting on its side, for a time, and to a large 
extent, the mistaken advocacy of the church herself. 
But here again the native spirit of Christianity at 
length prevails; and now, with the exception of 
Spain, Brazil,-)- and our Southern States, all the 
Western Christian World has declared itself openly 
and decidedly oj^posed to slavery. The aboli- 
tionists are not a mere knot of infidel malcontents, 
or New England fanatics, or Puritan Yankees, but 
the great mass of enlightened Christendom. The 
clergy and the dignitaries of the church may often 
have lagged behind, under the influence and the 
incubus of a conservative, and oppressive, and selfish 
aristocracy — (all aristocracies arc intensely selfish, 

* Russia, coming up somewhat behind, in the progress of 
Christian civilization, has completed the abolition of serfdom in 
Europe, in this nineteenth century. 

t The laws of slavery in Brazil are far more humane than in 
most slave countries. One provision enables the slave to have 
his name registered and his price fixed by a magistrate, and 
then pay that price as he can get small sums — the sale of the 
slave being no bar to counting previous payments — so that when 
the price is paid he is free. In 1850 the slave trade was pro- 
hibited in Brazil. Since the present reign commenced the num- 
ber of slaves has decreased one million, while the products of 
the soil have increased thirty-five per cent. The Emperor seems 
anxious to bring the system to an end, but indications in the 
northern part of the empire threaten him with a rebellion like 
ours, to perpetuate the system. Perhaps our suflFerings may be 
the means of mitigating those of Brazil. — Sj)irit of Missions. 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. IT)! 

as well as unscrnpulously cruel,) — but the spirit of 
Christlanit}^ has lived in the hearts of the Christian 
people, and has wrought out, thrice in succession, 
these triumphant results in favour of liberty. To 
what other cause than the influence of Christianity 
can they be ascribed ? If Christianity is friendly to 
slavery, whence has it come that precisely in the 
most enlightened Christian countries it is, and in 
Christian countries alone, that slavery is abolished 
and abhorred ? * 

Gold win Smith, the learned Professor of History 
at Oxford, states the case thus : 

" No sooner did the new religion gain power in the 
world, than the slave law, and the slave system of the 
empire, began to be undermined by its influence. In 
conscious alliance with stoicism, to which among 
all the ancient systems of philosophy it had the most 
affinity, Christianity broke in upon the despotism of 
the master, as well as upon the despotism of the 
father and the husband. The right of life and death 
over the slave was transferred from his owner to the 
magistrate. The right of correction was phaced 
under humane limitations, Avhich tlie magistrate was 
directed to maintain. All the restrictions on the 
enfranchisement of slaves were swept away. Tlie 
first Christian Emperor recognized enfranchisement 
as a religious act, and established the practice of 
performing it in the church, before the bishop, and 
in the presence of the congregation. 

" The liberties of the freedman were at the same 

* The appeal made, on the otber side, by (he authur of the 
"View," to the Greek Church, the Nestorians, tlie Cop(s, and 
Abyssinians, may be regarded as one of the strongest confirma- 
tions of my position. 



152 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

time cleared of all odious and injurious restrictions. 
This remained the policy of the Christian Empire. 
The Code of Justinian, the great monument of Im- 
perial Jurisprudence, is highly favourable to enfran- 
chisement, and that on religious grounds. 

" The facility of enfranchisement, and the j^rospect 
of enlarging that facility, Avould conspire with politi- 
cal prudence to prevent Christianity from coming 
into direct collision with Eoman slavery. 

'' Hope was not denied to the Eoman slave. But 
hope is denied, or almost denied, to the American 
slave. In most of the Southern States the law with- 
holds the power of enfranchisement from the master, 
against whose benevolence and generosity it seems 
the State is more concerned to guard, than against 
his cruelty and lust. 

^' A slave can be emancipated only by the authority 
of the legislature, or by a court of law, and upon 
special cause shown; and further, the condition of 
a Negro, when emancipated is such as to make free- 
dom at once a very qualified and a very precarious 
boon. The free Negro is still to a great extent ex- 
cluded from the rights of a citizen and a man. His 
evidence is not received against a white man; the 
law does not secure to him the safeguard of a trial 
by a jury of his peers ; he has no vote or voice in 
framing the laws by which he is governed, and de- 
grading restrictions are imposed even upon his 
religious worship. He is liable to be brought back 
into slavery many ways, — among others, by being 
married to a slave; and if his freedom is challenged, 
he must bring white witnesses to prove himself free. 
By the Eoman law the presumption was in favor of 
freedom, and, under the Empire, freedmen not only 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 153 

enjoyed full liberty, but from their industry and 
pliancy often engrossed too much power in the State. 

" But the Eoman world was doomed ; and it was 
doomed partly because the character of the upper 
classes had been deeply and incurably corrupted by 
the possession of a multitude of slaves. 

'' The feudal age succeeded ; the barbarian con- 
queror took the place of the Roman master, and a 
new phase of slavery appeared. Immediately Chris- 
tianity recommenced its work of alleviation and en- 
franchisement. The codes of laws framed for the 
new lords of Europe under the influence of the 
clergy, show the same desire as those of the Chris- 
tian Emperors, to break in upon the despotism of the 
master, and assure personal rights to the slave. The 
laws of the Lombards, for instance, protected the 
serf against an unjust or too rigorous master; they 
set free the husband of a female slave who had been 
seduced by her owner; they assured the protection 
of the churches to slaves, who had taken refuge 
there, and regulated the penalties to be inflicted for 
their faults, instead of leaving them subject to an 
arbitrary will. 

" In England, the clergy secured the slave rest on 
the Sunday, and liberty either to rest or work for 
himself on a number of holidaj^s. They exhorted 
their flocks to leave the savings and earnings of the 
predial slave untouched. 

"They constantly freed the slaves who came into 
their possession. They exhorted the laity to do the 
same, and what living covetousness refused, they 
often wrung from death-bed penitence. This they 
did constantly and efl'cctually during the early part 
of the Middle Ages, while the church was to a great 



154 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

extent in a missionary state, and had not yet been 
turned into an establishment allied with political 
power. Afterwards no doubt a change came over 
the spirit of the clergy in this as well as other res- 
pects. The church became an estate and part of a 
feudal system. Her Bishops became Spiritual Lords. 
And these Spiritual Lords, in the time of Eichard II., 
voted with the Temporal Lords for the repudiation 
of the King's promise of enfranchisement to the vil- 
lains, and the last serfs who remained in existence 
w^ere found on the estates of the church. 

*' Twice vanquished, in the shape of Ancient 
Slavery, and in the shape of Feudal Serfdom, the 
enemy rose again in the shape of ]!!^egro Slavery, 
the offspring not of Eoman or Barbarian conquest, 
but of commercial avarice and cruelty. And again 
Christianity returned to the struggle against the 
barrier'' thus a third time reared by tyranny and 
cujDidity in the path of her great social hope and 
mission, the brotherhood of man. By the mouth of 
Clarkson and Wilberforce, she demanded and ob- 
tained of a Christian nation the emanciiDation of the 
slaves in the West Indies. And if, in the case of 
American slavery, the upper classes of this country, 
from political considerations, have shown a change 
of feeling, and the clergy of the Established Church 
have gone with the upper classes, the Free Churches, 
more unbiassed organs of Christianity, have almost 
universally kept the faith. 

" If, then, we look to the records of Christianity 
in the Bible, we find no sanction for American 
slavery there. If we look to the history of Christen- 
dom, we find the propagators and champions of the 
faith assailing slavery under different forms, and in 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 155 

diiferent ages, without concert, yet with a unan- 
imity which would surely be strange if Christianity 
and slavery were not the natural enemies of each 
other." * 

Neander, the most learned of modern ecclesiastical 
historians, thus states the result of his investiga- 
tions : " Christianity effected a change in the convic- 
tions of men from which a dissolution of the whole 
relation of slavery, though it could not be imme- 
diately accomplished, yet by virtue of the conse- 
quences resulting from that change, was sure eventu- 
ally to take place. This effect Christianity pro- 
duced, first of all, by the fiicts to which it was a 
witness, and next by the ideas which, by means of 
these facts, it set in circulation. By Christ, the 
Saviour for all mankind, the differences among men, 
resulting from sin, Avere reconciled; by Him the 
original unity of the race was restored. These facts 
must now operate in transforming the life of man- 
kind. Masters as well as servants were obliged to 
acknowledge themselves the servants of sin, and 
must alike receive, as the free gift of God's grace, 
their deliverance from this common bondage, — the 
true, the highest freedom. Servants and masters, if they 
had become believers, were brought together under 
the same bond of a heavenly union destined for im- 
mortality ; they became brethren in Christ, in whom 
there is neither bond nor free, members of one body, 
baptized into one spirit, heirs of the same heavenly 
inheritance. "f 

Thc measured judgment of Giiizot is given in the 

* Goldvvin Smith, "Does the Bible sanction Slavery?" pp. 
202-205. 

f Church History, Vol. I., p. 372. 



156 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

following terms : " The church combated with much 
perseverance and pertinacity the great vices of the 
social condition, particularly slavery. It has been 
frequently asserted that the abolition of slavery in 
the modern world must be altogether carried to the 
credit of Christianity. I believe this is going too 
far : slavery subsisted for a long time in the bosom 
of Christian society without much notice being taken 
of it — Avithout any great outcry against it. To effect 
its abolition required the co-oj)eration of several 
causes — a great development of new ideas, of new 
i:>rinciples of civilization. It cannot, however, be 
denied that the church employed its influence to re- 
strain it ; the clergy in general, and especially several 
popes, enforced the manumission of their slaves as a 
duty incumbent upon laymen, and loudly inveighed 
against the scandal of keeping Christians in bondage. 
Again, the greater part of the forms by which slaves 
were set free, at various epochs, are founded upon 
religious motives. It is under the impression of some 
religious feeling — the hopes of the future, the equal- 
ity of all Christian men, and so on — that the free- 
dom of the slave is granted. These, it must be con- 
fessed, are rather convincing proofs of the influence 
of the church, and of her desire for the abolition of 
this evil of evils, this iniquity of iniquities.''* 

On the other hand, Balmes, a Spanish Koman Ca- 
tholic writer, in his great work on European civili- 
zation, is not at all content with the moderate judg- 
ment of the Protestant Guizot. " What abolished 
slavery among Christian nations ? Was it Chris- 
tianity ? Was it Christianity alone, by its lofty ideas 
in human dignity, by its maxims and its spirit of 

* Guizot. Civilization in Europe. Lect. C. 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 157 

fraternity and charity, and also by its prudent, gen- 
tle, and beneficent conduct ? I trust 1 shall prove that 
it icas. 

" M. Guizot is much mistaken if he expects to 
prove that the abolition of slavery was not due ex- 
clusively to Christianity, by the mere representation 
that slavery existed for a long time amid Christian 
society. To proceed logically, he must first see whe- 
ther the sudden abolition of it was possible, if the 
sj^irit of peace and order which animates the church 
could allow her rashly to enter on an enterprise 
which, without gaining the desired object, might 
have convulsed the world. The number of slaves 
was immense; slavery was deeply rooted in laws, 
manners, ideas, and interests, individual and social; 
a fatal system, no doubt, but the eradication of which 
all at once, it would have been rash to attempt, as 
its roots had penetrated deeply and spread widely in 
the bowels of the land. 

<' It is not even necessar}^ to suppose that the first 
Christians understood all the force of the tendencies 
of Christianity with respect to the abolition of sla- 
very. "What requires to be shown is, that the result 
has been obtained by the doctrines and conduct of 
the church. 

" The first thing that Christianity did for slaves, 
was to destroy the errors which opposed, not only 
their universal emancipation, but even the improve- 
ment of their condition ; that is, the first force which 
she employed in the attack was, according to her 
custom, the force of ideas. This first step was the 
more necessary, as the same thing applies to all 
other evils, as well as to slavery; every social evil 
is always accompanied by some error which pro- 
14 



158 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

duces or foments it. There existed Dot only the 
oppression and degradation of a large portion of the 
human race, but, moreover, an accredited error, 
which tended more and more to lower that portion 
of humanity. According to this opinion, slaves were 
a mean race, far below the dignity of freemen ; they 
were a race degraded by Jupiter himself, marked by 
a stamp of humiliation, and predestined to their 
state of abjection and debasement,* a detestable 
doctrine no doubt, contradicted by the nature of 
man, by history and experience; but which, never- 
theless, reckoned distinguished men among its de- 
fenders, and which we see proclaimed for ages, to 
the shame of humanity and the scandal of reason, 
until Christianity came to destroy it, by undertaking 
to vindicate the rights of man. 

" We may inquire of M. Guizot what were the 
other causes^ the other ideas, the other principles of civili- 
zation, the great development of w^hich, to avail my- 
self of his w^ords, ^vas necessary ' to abolish this evil 
of evils, this iniquity of iniquities.' Ought he not 
to explain, or at least point out, these causes, ideas, 
and princij^les of civilization, which, according to 
him, assisted the church in the abolition of slavery, 
in order to save the reader the trouble of seeking or 
divining them? If they did not arise in the bosom 
of the church, ivhere did they arise ? Were they found 
in the ruins of ancient civilization ? But could 
these remains of a scattered and almost annihilated 
civilization eifect w^hat that same civilization, in 
all its vigour, power, and splendour, never did, or 
thought of doing? Were they in the individual indc- 

■^' How much this is like the *' curse of Ilam !" 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 159 

pendence of the barbarians P But that individuality, 
the inseparable companion of violence, must conse- 
quently have been the source of oppression and sla- 
very.* Were they found in the military patronage, 
introduced, according to M. Guizot, by the barba- 
rians themselves ; patronage which laid the founda- 
tion of that aristocratical organization which was 
converted at a later period into feudality ? But what 
could this patronage — an institution likely, on the 
contrary, to perpetuate slavery among the indigent 
in conquered countries, and to extend it to a consi- 
derable portion of the conquerors themselves — what 
could this patronage do for the abolition of slavery ? 
AVhere, then, is the idea, the custom, the institution, 
which, born out of Christianity, contributed to the 
abolition of slavery ? Let any one point out to us 
the epoch of its formation, the time of its develop- 
ment j let him show us that it had not its oriirin in 
Christianity; and we will then confess that the latter 
cannot exclusively lay claim to the glorious title of 
having abolished that degraded condition; and he 
may be sure that this shall not prevent our exaltino- 
that idea, custom, or institution, which took part in 
the great and noble enterprise of liberating the hu- 
man race.'^f 

The celebrated German theologian Mohler, also a 
Eomanist, has written a whole treatise to show that 
slavery was abolished by Christianity. 

I cheerfully set the authority of Balmcs and 3Ioh- 
ler against that of Bishop England, to whom the 
author of the " View" appeals, and whose see was no 

* Just as with our modern " cliiv.ilry." 

f Balmes, Europeftn Civilization, pp. 91, 05, 111. 



160 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Other than Charleston, S. C— as an exponent of the 
position of the Eoman Catholic church in relation to 
this question. 

In the face of all these authorities, what shall we 
say to such allegations as the following : " The causes 
which led to the extinction of slavery in Europe 
were secular and not religious," "no statement can 
be more unsupported by the facts of history than 
that the extinction of slavery in Europe was owing 
to the influence of Christianity." Did not the early 
Christians make emancipation a solemn religious 
act? And, as G-uizot says, was it not all along, 
*' under the impression of some religious feeling — the 
hopes of the future — the equality of all Christian men, 
and so on, that the freedom of the slave was granted ?" 

The friends of Wilberforce will be amazed to hear 
it intimated that he did not really aim at the aboli- 
tion of slavery in the "West Indies, and that he was 
not prompted in his efforts by Christian principle 
and religious motives. And hardly less amazed will 
the Quakers be, to learn that they have not regarded 
slavery as a sin, and have been influenced in their 
persistent efforts for its abolition only by the consi- 
derations of a " wise expediency T 

But, says the author of the " Yiew," triumphantly : 
*' that the Church of England held slavery to be jier- 
fectly lawful in itself, as well as the Church of Eome, 
and all the Christian denominations of Europe and 
America, through the whole period of their history, 
down to the end of the last century, and far into the 
present, is as incontrovertible as any fact can be. 
The Bishops of that church saw* no sin in the treaty 
of Utrecht, to which the religious Queen Anne was 
a party. They concurred in the Act of Parliament 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. IGl 

imdor George III., which regarded the negroes as 
lawful merchandise. The Puritans of New Enirland 
sold the Indians as slaves, and were the cliief im- 
porters of the Africans for the Southern market. 
Even the Quakers of Pennsylvania had slaves, and 
William Penn was a slaveholder." 

Now here we have a j)retty fair specimen of this 
whole " Yiew of Slavery," and of its style of reason- 
ing. Let us look at it a moment. 

1. Ohserve the petty quihble of " lawful in itself.'* 
On this the whole hinges. 

2. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was 
born in 1703. entered at Christ Church, Oxford, in 
1720, took orders in 1725, received a Fellowship in 
Lincoln College in 1726, and the degree of A. M. in 
1727. From 1735 to 1737, he resided as a missionary 
in Georgia and Carolina, where he had an opj)or- 
tunity to see with his own eyes what slavery was. 
It is he who so truthfully denominated slavery " the 
sum of all villanies." The author of the '• Yiew" has 
frequently quoted this phrase to sneer at it, but has 
entirely omitted the name of John Wesley, while the 
later Adam Clarke is quoted at large, apparently to 
illustrate a modern change in Methodist opinion. Had 
John Wesley and his followers been wise enough to 
remain in the bosom of the English church, and had 
that church been wise enough to retain them there, 
it certainly would not have diminished her spiritual 
life or lowered her Christian character or conscience ; 
and, in my opinion, would have been of inestimable 
advantage to the Methodists theniselvos, and to the 
church at large. John Wesley lias as good a right 
to speak in the name of Christianity, and as an ex- 
ponent of the genius of the Christian religion, as any 



162 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

prelate of the English church; but there have not 
been wanting prelates and doctors of that church 
who have spoken against slavery with no doubtful 
utterance, such as Eishop TVarburton, Bishop Butler, 
Bishop Porteus, Bishop Horsley, and Archdeacon 
Paley. And if the point is, that the English church 
has not pronounced formally and authoritatively 
against negro slavery; I answer, on what has the Eng- 
lish church pronounced formally and authoritatively 
for the last two hundred years, except b}^ act of Par- 
liament, or of the privy council ? 

3. But ''the Bishops of that church saw no sin in 
the treaty of Utrecht, to which the religious Queen 
Anne was a party. They concurred in the act of 
Parliament under George III., which regarded the 
negroes as lawful merchandise." ]^ow what was the 
treaty of Utrecht ? It secured to the English African 
Comj^any a monopoly in the introduction of negroes 
into the several j)orts of Spanish America, for the 
term of thirty years. And the first article stipulated 
that this company should bring into the West Indies 
one hundred and forty-four thousand negroes, within 
that period, one-fourth part of the commercial profits he- 
ing reserved to the King of Spain, and another fourth 
part to the Queen of England. 

Here it is important to have a fair understanding. 
,Does the author of the " Yiew" approve or disapprove 
of the African Slave Trade ? Does he or does he not 
see any wrong in it? Let us know distinctly, and 
without any shuffling. In many parts of his book 
he seems opposed to the African Slave Trade, to re- 
gard it as an inhuman traffic, but to make a broad 
distinction between the Slave Trade and slavehold- 
ing. And then again he seems ready to justify tho 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 1G3 

African Slave Trade itself. Observe, at all events, 
that the Bishops of the English church are admitted 
to be as fully committed to an approbation of the 
Slave Trade as of slaveholding; and the religious 
Queen Anne graciously received her share of the 
profits. "Was, then, the Slave Trade wrong? If, 
though not wrong then, it is wrong now, what 
makes it wrong now ? Is it wrong because it is for- 
bidden, or is it forbidden because it is wrong ? Would 
the author of the " Yiew" have men hung as pirates 
on the grounds of a ^^ wise expediency T^ Hung for 
buying and selling slaves in one latitude, and de- 
fended as the best of Christians — yes, the very best 
of Christians — for doing it in another ? 

4. But the Puritans were slaveholders and slave- 
traders, and even William Penn held slaves. — Well, 
was this to the credit or discredit of the Puritans ? 
If it was to their credit, it is refreshing to find that 
something can be said to the honour of New England 
Puritans; but it is a curious thing to allege it as a 
means of heaping odium on their descendants. If it 
is to their discredit, then some of their descendants 
are doing what they can to hold themselves clear 
from any similar charge, and certainly they should 
not be found fault with for that. If the Irish author 
of the " Yiew'' were an earnest abolitionist, and was 
disputing to the New Englanders or the Pcnnsylva- 
nians their exclusive claim to the credit of the aboli- 
tion movement, what is said about the Puritans and 
William Penn, would be none the less ill-natured, 
but might have the apparent force of an argument. 
But as the case stands, this stale and ill-natured fling 
— even if admitted to be true, which it is not — has 



164 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

not even the merit of possessing the slightest argu- 
mentative force. 

In fine, as to the position of the English church on 
this question, it is not here pretended that that posi- 
tion has been '■ ultra-abolitionist;'' but it is insisted 
that her heart and her voice have been in favour of 
emancipation and condemnatory of slavery. That 
cause must indeed be desperate which is reduced to 
the forlorn attempt to show that the Christian mind 
of England is in favour of slavery. The dignitaries 
of the Church of England, in sympathy w4th the 
aristocracy, may have been backward in condemning 
the system. But a man does not become any more 
of a Christian, nor is he of course imbued any more 
deeply with the spirit of Christianity, by being raised 
to the Episcopal bench. And from the time of St. 
Paul until now, the aristocracy is the last portion of 
society where one should seek the true genius and 
spirit of the Christian religion. If anything is to 
ruin the church of England, and if anything is to 
corrupt and enfeeble her American daughter, it is 
the disposition to sympathize too largely with the 
aristocracy and too little with the mass of the Chris- 
tian people. 

England is not only anti-slavery, but, notwith- 
standing all national and political jealousies, she is 
in favour of the side of freedom in our present strug- 
gle. And in this case, as in regard to the question 
of slavery itself, the opposition to our cause is found 
among the aristocracy, and the clergy of the estab- 
lished church who affiliate with them. 

On the whole, it cannot be doubted that Chris- 
tianity is an anti-slavery religion, that the enlight- 
ened Christian church is, and ever has been, an 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 165 

anti-slavery church, that the prevailing sentiment 
of Christian Europe is an anti-slavery sentiment, 
and that those, whether on the continent or in Great 
Britain, who are opposed to us in our present con- 
test and sympathize with the rebellion, are actuated 
solely by political considerations and prejudices, in 
spite of their anti-slavery feelings. They favour the 
Southern oligarchy and oppose the free republic of 
the l!>[orth, or rather the great republic of the United 
States, because they so far harmonize with our " Chris- 
tian Bishop" as to sneer at the principles of the im- 
mortal Declaration of Independence, to reject the 
natural rights of man, and to decry the idea of the 
peoj)le's being capable of self-government; and be- 
cause they dread the future powder, moral, political, 
and physical, of this rising Western Empire, if it be 
allowed to wax to its fall growth as one great free 
Commonwealth. 

I venture to add the following from a vigorous 
English writer, as indicating, from an Englishman's 
point of view, the character and spirit of the persis- 
tent efforts made in certain quarters to poison and 
prejudice English opinion, in relation to our present 
national struggle and its proper causes : 

" It is a melancholy reflection, that on no question 
in our day has so much want of candor been dis- 
played, or so much dishonest perversion been re- 
sorted to, as on this question of the American revolt. 
The origin of the war, the object of the war, the 
progress of the war, the spirit in which tlie war is 
conducted, in spite of the clearest possible facts, 
have, one after the other, been disputed, denied, or 
perverted. When Southern politicians, from Davis 
to Toombs, and from Stephens to Spratt, tell us that 



160 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

they design to establish a Government, based on the 
bondao-e of the laborer — when the bishops of the 
Episcopal Church declare that the 'abolition of 
slavery is hateful, infidel, and pestilent,' and the Eev. 
Dr. Palmer adds that ' the providential trust of the 
South is to perpetuate the institution of domestic 
slavery now existing, with the freest scope for its 
natural development;' when the statesmen, jour- 
nalists, and divines of the South join in one chorus 
of admiration for slavery, people among us are yet 
dishonest enough to aver that the question of slavery 
neither had nor has anything whatever to do with 
the rebellion of the South -, that that rebellion was 
simply and entirely a question of tariff ! 

" Precisely the same spirit is shown in dealing 
with the events of the war. When Sherman drives 
Johnston into the interior of Georgia, Johnston suc- 
ceeds in drawing Sherman from his base. When 
Grant attacks Lee in front, he is credited with the 
qualities of a bear. When he outflanks Lee, he is 
afraid to meet him in the field. When he at last 
succeeds, by strength, courage, or strategy, in driving 
him from Fredericksburg to Eichmond — why, then 
we are told that the Federal general might have 
reached that point long ago. While the opposing 
armies w^ere on the Eapidan, we had no end of pre- 
dictions that Grant would never see Eichmond. 
When he at length does see it, we are assured that 
Grant is a fool for not taking a shorter route. Ever 
since Butler landed on the James, we have had almost 
daily assurances that the next mail would bring us 
news of his having been driven into the river. On 
the other hand, every repulse of the Federals, how- 
ever trifling, has been magnified into a rout; while 



SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH. 1G7 

more than one success for the Confederates has been 
reported and gloried in twice or thrice over. 

" If one had read the exclusive news of the Cop- 
perhead newspapers only, one would have been 
sorely puzzled to understand how it is that the 
North is not overrun ; that Washington is not de- 
stroyed, and that the Armies of the Potomac and 
Cumberland exist at all. In the same, if Semmes 
didn't take the Kearsage, it was only because his 
ship was out of repair and his enemy was chain- 
plated. Semmes wasn't beaten; he ouly committed 
' a mistake.' But if the critics are severe on the 
Federals, they are exceedingly charitable to the 
slaveholders. Semmes burns unarmed shij^s; runs 
away from the Federal cruisers ; libels the victor in 
his first fair encounter, and the critics celebrate his 
gallantry, and call him a hero. Like kings in the 
constitutional axiom, the slaveholders can do no 
wrong. They shoot negro teamsters at Murfrees- 
boro'; they give no quarter to the negro troops at 
Port Hudson; they burn alive the negro garrison 
at Port Pillow — and never a word of protest or cen- 
sure is uttered by the critics. They chain canuon- 
balls to the legs of Federal officers at Atlanta; they 
starve Federal j^risoners at Belle Isle; they make 
arrangements to blow up a military prison at Rich- 
mond ; they slaughter men, women and children in 
Kansas ; they play at nine-j^ins with the bones of 
the Federal dead; they commit every conceivablo 
atrocity, and many atrocities that are absolutely in- 
conceivable — and yet no Confederate commentator 
on the Avar goes out of liis way to condemn them. 
Such is the way in which contemporary events are 
chronicled in EiigUuid !'' 



CHAPTEE VI. 

SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 

SLAYEHOLDEES and their advocates are accus- 
tomed to give proof of their extraordinary piety 
by their constant devout recognition of Divine Pro- 
vidence. This belongs almost as invariably to the 
staple of their argument as does the curse of Ham or 
the Epistle to Philemon. What brought the I^egroes 
from Africa ? l^ot the wickedness of the slave trade, 
but Divine Providence. What perpetuates their 
bondage ? Not the cupidity of their masters, but 
Divine Providence. What deprives them of their 
rights? Not the iniquitous course of men, but the 
Providence of God. The prohibition of their instruc- 
tion, the infliction of cruel treatment, the system of 
concubinage, the compulsory separation of families 
— these are all dispensations of God's holy Provi- 
dence. And if the slaves are now to be emancipated, 
it will be brought about in the Providence of God, 
in his own good time ; and men must beware of med- 
dling with God's work, or attempting to forestall the Di- 
vine decrees. Says Bishop Hopkins : " If any man 
can seriously contemplate the awful debasement of 
the native Africans, and candidly compare it with 
the present condition of the Southern slaves, and 
then denou7ice as a sin the means wdiich Divine Pro- 
vidence has chosen to save them from their former 

(168) 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 160 

state of wretched barbarism, lean only say- 
that I am at a loss whether I should be most aston- 
ished at the waywardness of his heart, or the blind- 
ness of his understanding." " In the Providence of 
God, the negro slavery of the South has been the 
means of saving millions of those poor creatures 
from the horrible state in w^hich they must other- 
wise have lived and died.'' Observe, by the way, 
that this argument justifies the slave trade even 
more directly than it does the " negro slavery of the 
South." And further on, he says : " Until it comes" 
— the time when the race of Canaan shall be relieved 
from the curse, — " it is our duty to submit with pa- 
tient faith to our allotted condition 3 not rebelliously 
warring against the will of the Most High, nor vainly 
opposing ourselves to the arrangements of his Pro- 
vidence, nor accusing our brethren in Christ as sin- 
ners because they keep in slavery the race which 
God saw fit to doom to servitude." And acrain ; 
"When the time for the total abolition of slavery 
comes, it will not be by the insane projects of politi- 
cians, through blood and desolation. The Supremo 
Euler of nations, in whose hands are the hearts of 
men, will incline the minds of the South, when ho 
sees it to be right, to institute and carry on tlie pro-. 
cess, in the only safe and effectual way, which has 
been pursued by the other States in relation to it. 
Since the world began slavery has never been abol- 
ished by external force and violence. It has been 
done away by internal action on the part of those who 
are directly concerned." Ho then cites, in ilhistra- 
lion, the two cases of St. Domingo and the British 
AVest Indies. Now this, by the way, seems to me a 
most singular perversion. Since the world began 
15 



170 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

was it ever heard that a legislature controlled by 
slaveholders freely abolished slavery ? The legisla- 
tures of all our free States were, by immense ma- 
jorities, under the control of non-slaveholders, when 
they abolished slavery. Not a slaveholder was re- 
presented in the British Parliament which passed 
the emancipation act. If the abolition of slavery 
had been left to the " internal action'^ of the West 
India Colonial legislatures, it would not have been 
abolished to this day, — not to say, never; — nor, if 
the doctrines of this " Yiew of Slavery" were adopted 
and acted on by slaveholders, would they ever abolish 
slavery anywhere; for why should they ? Is it not 
a Divine institution — an unspeakable blessing, an 
ordination of God's Providence, perfectly just and 
right ? How soon would the " Supreme Euler of 
nations," under such instructions as those, and while 
'' Cotton is king," incline the hearts of Southern 
slaveholders to the " total abolition of slavery ?" 
Has slavery been abolished in Missouri, in Louisiana, 
in Maryland, in West Virginia, in Yirginia herself, 
— or would it ever have been abolished, by the influ- 
ence of such doctrines as those contained in this 
" Yiew," or by the " internal action'^ of the slave- 
holders themselves ? 

But this by the way. What I have now to com- 
ment upon is — this very pious appeal to Divine Pro- 
vidence. The author of the " Yiew" is not alone in 
this. It is quite characteristic of slaveholding logic. 
The Professor of Agricultural Chemistry in the Uni- 
versity of Georgia remarks on the "Providential" 
proportion of the untilled lands of the South and 
*' the unemployed power of human muscles in 
Africa." — " I trace, he exclains, " the growing de- 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 171 

mand for negro muscles, bones, and brains to the 
good providence of God." But I will not multiply 
quotations. It will be found, as I have said, that 
this appeal to the Providence of God underlies a 
large part of the argument, and is the basis of some 
of the most fervid denunciations of this " Yiew of 
Slavery," and of pro-slavery writers generally. I 
shall not call it blasphemous ;* but shall endeavour, 
once for all, to expose its fallacy, its utter and in- 
sufferable nonsense, considered as a matter of rea- 
soning. 

The whole question lies in a small compass. It 
must be plain, upon the slightest reflection, that 
the " Providence of God " has nothing whatever to 
do with determining the moral character of the 
actions of men. What sin was ever wrought, what 

* The one-sided notions which pro-slavery men entertain of 
Divine Providence are well illustrated by the following fact: 
In the Episcopal Convention of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, 
held at Pittsburg, in May, 1864, this resolution was offered: — 
•' Resolved, That in the long deloy of success in suppressing this 
monstrous rebellion, we see wonderfully manifest the hand of 
God, training by his severest chastisements, this reluctant peo- 
ple to a readiness to do justice and show mercy to a long-op- 
pressed and outraged race;" whereupon, the Rev. Mr. Swope, 
of Pittsburg, was understood to denounce the resolution as 
" blasphemous y But wherein did the blasphemy consist ? In 
recognizing the Providence of God? That can hardly be. In 
professing to fathom God's designs? If so, what is Palcy's The- 
ology but one mass of blasphemies? In ascribing mch a design 
to God, as leading men *'to do justice and show mercy?" But 
what design could be more worthy of his Providence ? Or, finally, 
did it consist in this, that the Rev. Mr. Swope knew that God 
had no such design as was ascribed to him? But that would be 
a mere question of fact ; and besides there would then be as 
much *• blasphemous" presumption on one side as on the other. 



172 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

crime was ever perpetrated, what cruelty or villainy 
was ever committed, what action, right or wrong, 
was ever done by man, what event, of whatever char- 
acter, ever transpired in human history, — which did 
not take place by the Providence of God ? Because 
God brings good out of evil, does that justify the 
evil ? If so, not slavery, alone, but all sin, would 
find speedy absolution. God's Providence, but not 
the evil, is thereby justified. The justification of 
God's Providence, and the justification of man's 
agency, are two distinct things. A Theodicy is not 
a system of ethics. " Whatever is, is right," is 
true in relation to Divine Providence, but not true, 
most assuredly, in relation to human actions. The 
slave trade, with all its execrable and horrible bar- 
barities, took place under Divine Providence. The 
slave trade was abolished and declared piracy, under 
Divine Providence. All the atrocities of the old 
French Eevolution were committed under Divine 
Providence. The American Eevolution was achieved 
under Divine Providence. ]^egro slavery was estab- 
lished in America under Divine Providence. And 
wherever, and by whatever means, internal or ex- 
ternal, — violent or peaceful, — sudden or gradual, — 
it shall ever be abolished, it is to be presumed it will 
be under Divine Providence. Why, has not the " abo- 
lition fanaticism" itself, as well as the institution of 
slavery, arisen under Divine Providence ? And yet 
abolitionists are denounced because they would " in- 
terfere with the Providence of God." If a man can 
get outside of the Providence of God, to interfere 
with it, he must go somewhere that I never heard 
of. Did the steamship interfere with the Providence 
of God ? Did the telegraph interfere with the Provi- 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 173 

dence of God ? Does the teacher, with his instruc- 
tions for the ignorant, interfere with the Providence 
of God ? Does the physician, with his remedies, 
interfere with the Providence of God ? But are not 
darkness and death, both spiritual and temporal, 
sent upon mankind as the result of a Divine curse ? 
Why, then, should it be an interference with the 
Providence of God, to preach deliverance to the cap- 
tive, to seek the freedom of the slave, to endeavour 
to enlighten and elevate the long-oppressed and be- 
nighted Negro race? What there should be so 
peculiar, in just this particular case, in relation to 
Divine Providence, passes all comprehension. In the 
name of common sense, then, let us hear no more 
justifications of slavery and denunciations of aboli- 
tion, from the Providence of God. 

Another great gun in the slaveholders' ethical 
logic, which they never fail to bring into requisition, 
and which the author of the " Yiew'' has several 
times discharged with evident satisfaction at its ex- 
pected execution, — is this, that " slavery is not wrong 
2Jer se, not wrong in itself, and irrespective of the 
question of treatment.'' But if the whole question of 
right or wrong lies in the treatment, then slavery 
in itself has no character at all. What is slavery in 
itself^ Where was it ever seen ? It becomes a pure 
abstraction. It exists only in the mind; and it may 
readily be admitted that the idea of slaver}', as it 
exists in a man's mind, is not morally wrong. lUit 
wherever slavery exists as a fact, it exists in the 
concrete. Nothing really exists in itself, but God. 
If all slavery were abolished except slavery in the 
abstract, slavery in itself, the most rabid abolitionist 
might well be satisfied. Killing a man is not wrong 
15* 



174 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

in itself. Taking my neighbour's goods is not wrong 
in itself. Desiring another's property is not wrong 
in itself; for, if it were, the tenth commandment 
would be violated in every case of trade or barter, 
since each party desires that which belongs to the 
other. No external act or course of action is good 
or bad in itself, i. e., without reference to the agent 
and his motive. The essence of right and wrong 
pertains to that which is internal, the heart, the will, 
the purpose. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is 
he." Yet we condemn murder, though we can see 
nothing but the indiiferent external act; we con- 
demn it, because tlxat act in certain connexions is 
held to imply the malicious intent. So of theft, and 
other crimes. So of slavery. Taken in its concrete 
connexions, we know it must generally be wrong; 
and, if there are any excerptions, the burden of proof 
is upon them ; they must show that they are excep- 
tions. Slavery, in general, just as certainly implies, 
on the part of the master, cupidity, selfishness, dis- 
regard for his neighbour's rights, as deliberately 
killing a man with a bludgeon implies malice pre- 
pense. Such slavery as that described by Judge 
Kuffin is no abstraction ; it cannot possibly be right. 
Another familiar justification of slavery is derived 
from its beneficial results; it has improved the con- 
dition of the blacks ; it has been a most effective 
missionary institution. But here we meet with the 
plain moral principle, that good results, unless in- 
tended, do not justify our actions, for they do not 
properly belong to us; nor even when intended do 
they always furnish a complete vindication ; for 
" the end alone does not justify the means." And 
what man in his senses can honestly believe that 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. .175 

Southern slaveholders, in general, hold their slaves, 
and that slave traders buy and sell them, from the 
dominant motive of improving their condition and 
saving their souls ? Are the Southern masters edu- 
cating and preparing their slaves for freedom ? How 
much progress have they made in the work during 
the last thirty years ? and if they go on at this rate 
when will the}' be ready to emanci2)ate them all? 
If it be suggested that they may be, at least in jDart, 
controlled by good motives, some more, some less, — 
I answer that as men usually act from complex and 
mixed motives, it is rare that any man, in any action, 
is absolutely good or absolutely bad. The worst 
things, even slavery, may have something of good 
in them, without being thereby justified; and some 
slaveholders may be comparatively good men, though 
the system of slavery be thoroughly bad. Even a 
murderer may have some good qualities, and may 
have been prompted to the very act of murder, in 
part, by good motives. 

The advocates of slavery, when the cruelties and 
oppressions incident to the system are charged upon 
it, rarely fail to carry the war out 0/ Africa; saying, 
"there are cruelties and oppressions and evils in 
free countries also," — "let him that is without sin 
cast the first stone;" "reform your own social sys- 
tem before you meddle with the reformation of 
others." But it is no justification of one thing, — 
rather it is an implied condemnation of it, — to say 
that other things are as bad, or even worse; nor is 
it so much as a valid arcjumentum ad hominem, whilo 
the party addressed does not defend the latter in 
passing over them to attack the former. And even 
though his passing over the one and assailing tho 



176 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

other should be admitted to be an inconsistency in 
him, that would not, in the slightest degree, alter or 
affect the intrinsic moral character of the things in 
question. " This is as bad or worse," — then that is 
confessedly bad. Neither the condemnation nor the 
punishment of crimes is to remain in abeyance until 
2)erfcct men can be found to apply them ; otherwise, 
the administration of moral judgment and human 
justice must utterly and forever cease. Nor is a 
man or a community estopped from attempting any 
reformation abroad until there are no evils or faults 
to bo corrected at home. If the reforming party 
claimed to be perfect, there might be ground for a 
fair retort ; but even this would furnish no defence 
or proper justification of that which he would re- 
form. Moreover, the existence of evils or wrongs 
in spite of the law, is no excuse for a law or a system 
and course of legislation establishing and protecting in- 
justice and oppression. The cases are not parallel. 
Crimes exist in spite of all laws ; but that is no good 
reason for legalizing them; nor is it even any good 
reason for abolishing all legislation. We must be 
content, — if content at all, — with what is short of 
perfection; while yet perfection must be our con- 
stant goal. 

When slavery is defended as being right in itself^ 
and all the wrong, if any, is transferred to the treat- 
ment, and declared, therefore, to be merely incidental, 
the intention must be — unless slavery is left a mere 
characterless abstraction — to speak of slavery, the 
" relation of master and slave," as a thing, a reality, 
embodied in the law. Aside from all "treatment," 
what real meaning can be attached to "the relation 
of master and slave," except as it is defined, sane- 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 177 

tioned, and maintained b}- the law? If that law is 
Avronc:, then that " relation of master and slave" is 
wrong. ]^ow the Christian moralist may judge of 
the rightfulness of laws, and, if a citizen of a free 
country, it is his bounden duty thus to judge; for, 
80 far as he has a moral or political influence, he is 
responsible for their character. I know there are 
some who dispute this view. No less a man than 
one who had been a distinguished officer in the navy, 
and afterwards a senator in congress from the State 
of New Jersey, and who considered either his per- 
sonal importance or the weight of his doctrine suffi- 
cient to authorize his publishing a formal Address to 
the People of the JVorth just before the breaking out 
of the Southern Eebellion, — made the distinct an- 
nouncement, " whatever the law declares to be right, 
is right."* This was a short and easy method to 
put an end to all discussion about the right or wrong 
of slavery. But, according to this, a legislature is 
not only supreme but infallible. A legislature can 
do no wrong, can enact no injustice. Neither can 
legislators, without absurdity, raise the question of 
right or wrong in discussing a proposed measure; 
if they only enact it, it cannot help being right. One 
might as well say, " whatever the law declares to bo 
true, is true;" — if the law says "black is white," 
then black is white. Those who hold this doclrino 

* And yet the honourable Senator Avould perhaps be among tho 
first to declare that the emancipation of the slaves by law with- 
out compensation to the masters would be wrong : for example, 
that an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, con- 
stitutionally made, so emancipating; all the slaves in the country, 
would be wrong; or a similar amendment of a State constitution, 
say, of Maryland, similarly made, would still be wrong. 



178 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

would do well to consider what is their idea of right, 
and whence it is derived. Is their very idea of right, 
" that which is established by law ?'' Then to say 
that "what the law establishes is right/' is as much 
as to say, " what the law establishes, the law estab- 
lishes." On the other hand, is their idea of right 
derived from the judgment of the moral faculty and 
indeiDcndent of the positive enactment of law ? Then 
the statement that " whatever the law declares to be 
right, is right,'' becomes a mere opinion of fact, and 
not a doctrine of necessary truth; the opinion may 
be false in any given case ; it is manifestly false in 
many cases, and, in every case, the question whether 
it be true or false must be submitted to the decision 
of the moral faculty. 

Says Bishop Hopkins : " The nearest approach on 
earth to what men call freedom and equality consists 

in subjection to good laws What compels this 

subjection? The Government. What is the G-overn- 
ment ? It is the systematic organization of force. 
]Sro law is of any efficacy among men unless there is 
a power able to execute it. But the importance of 
Government is seen in this, that the force which it 
exercises is regulated by the fixed principles of jus- 
tice, and intended to operate on every class in the 
community, so as to protect their rights and privi- 
leges;" and, farther on, he speaks of " the rule of a 
just government." I^ow whether or not he means 
here to affirm the same doctrine with that of the 
New Jersey Senator, may be uncertain. There are 
other statements in his book, — as when he repeats 
the stereotyped denunciations of " the higher law," 
— which seem to look in that direction. And, if he 
means that, as a matter of necessity or of universal 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 171) 

fact, " the force which the Government exercises is 
reguhated by the fixed principles of justice, and in- 
tended to 02:)erate on every class of the community, 
so as to protect their rights and principles," then he 
adopts that doctrine in terms. But, if he means 
that this is the proper idea of Government, which 
may or may not be realized in particular cases; then 
his is a very different doctrine from the other. And 
he must mean this, if he would not avoid absurdity; 
for, otherwise, what sense is there in " good govern- 
ment, '^ ^^just government," "government being regu- 
lated hy fixed 'principles of justice ?" Surely this must 
imply that there may be had government, unjust gov- 
ermont, and that the fixed principles of justice exist 
antecedent and superior to the government which they 
are to regulate. 

But though our moral judgments are properly in- 
dependent of and superior to the laws, — not our 
external actions, but our moral judgments, — still, it must 
be admitted that the laws under which we have been 
educated react powerfully upon our moral judg- 
ments. If we had grown r.p where the murder of a 
human being was punished but slightly, or not at all, 
while to maintain that slaver}^ is wrong and ought 
to be abolished was a capital offence, we might very 
probably come to regard the aboiitionist as much 
worse than the murderer. A Frank inquired of an 
Arab what he considered the greatest of sins. " The 
greatest sin," said the Arab, "is, to deny the 
Tinity of God," " and the next greatest is, to drink 
the shamefuV — (i. e., to use wine) — "these can 
never be forgiven; let these be avoided, and the rest 
is of little consequence." " l^ut what of murder, 
adultery, robbery?" &c., iixpiircd the Frank. " God 



180 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

is merciful/' was the Arab's reply. What, then, is 
the Southern law of slavery? I have already re- 
ferred to the decision of Judge Euffin, to show that 
the " relation of master and slave/' as defined and 
maintained by Southern law, is an immoral relation. 
That decision does not stand alone. I propose to 
add here other specimens of slave law, taken almost 
at random from a collection made by Judge Stroud : 

The civil law — except where modified by statute, or by usages 
which have acquired the force of law — is generally referred to 
in the slaveholding States, as containing the true principles of 
the institution. It will be proper, therefore, to give an abstract 
of its leading doctrines ; for which purpose, I use Dr. Taylor's 
Elements of the Civil Law, page 429; — "Slaves," says he, "were 
held pro nullis; pro mortuis ; pro quadrupedibus. They had no 
Jiead in the State, no name, title or register; they were not capa- 
ble of being injured; nor could they take by purchase or de- 
scent ; they had no heirs, and therefore could make no will ; ex- 
clusive of what was called their peculium, whatever they acquired 
was their master's ; they could not plead nor be pleaded for, but 
were excluded from all civil concerns whatever; they could not 
claim the indulgence of absence reipubliccB causa; they were not 
entitled to the rights and considerations of matrimony, and, 
therefore, had no relief in case of adultery ; nor were they pro- 
per objects of cognation or afiinity, but of quasi-cognation only; 
they could be sold, transferred, or pawned as goods or personal 
estate ; for goods they were, and as such they were esteemed ; 
they might be tortured for evidence, punished at the discretion 
of their lord, or even put to death by his authority." (p. 9.) 

The doctrine of South Carolina is equally strong. It is concen- 
trated by Wardlaw, J., in this single sentence: — "Every endea- 
vour to extend to a slave positive rights is an attempt to reconcile 
inherent contradictions; for, in the very nature of things, he is sub- 
ject to DESPOTISM." Uz parte Botleton, 2 Slrobhart, 41. He gives 
this as a quotation from Kinlock vs. Harvey, Harper's Rep., 614, 
with the commendation, " as is well said.'* According to the law 
of Louisiana, " a slave is one who is in the power of a master to 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 181 

whom he belongs. The mnstcr may sell him, dispose of his per- 
son, his industry, and his labor; he can do nothing, possess no- 
thing, nor acquire anything, but what must belong to his master." 
Civil Code, Art. 35. As to the master's power to punish his slave, 
a limitation seems to be contemplated by the following article: — 
Tlie slave is entirely subject to the will of his master, who may 
correct and chastise him, though not with unusual rigour, or so cu to 
viaim or mutilate him, or to expose, him to the danger of loss of life, 
or to cause his death. Art. 173. Yet, as will be fully demonstrated 
hereafter, no such limitation actually exists, or can by law be 
enforced. 

With respect to the other slaveholding States, as none of these 
have adopted e?itire ivritien codes, enunciations of such a general na- 
ture as are exhibited in the quotations just made from the law of 
Louisiana are not to be expected. Nevertheless, the cardinal 
principle of slavery — that the slave is to be regarded as a thing, — 
is an article of property, — a chattel personal, — obtains as un- 
doubted law in all of these States, (p. 10.) 

Having transcribed acts of South Carolina and of 
Louisiana, which are too long to be inserted here, 
Judge Stroud adds : 

Hence it appears that acording to a statute that was enacted 
upon the most solemn deliberation by one legislature, and which 
has been adopted since by four distinct bodies of the same nature, 
ten hours make up the longest space out of twenty-four hours, 
which can be demanded for labor from convicted felons, whose pun- 
ishment was designed to consist chiefly of haud labor. Yet the 
slave of South Carolina, under a law professing to extend humanity 
towards him, may be subjected to unremitting toil for fiftken 
Hoi'RS within the same period ! ! 

If we turn to Louisiana, the condition of tlio slave will be 
found, in this particular, without melioration. For, though the 
purpose of the act which I have transcribed is declared to be to 
ascertain what hours are to be assigned to the slave for work and 
BEST, the only rest which it provides is half an hour at breakfast, 
and two hours at dinner. At what time a third meal is to be 
taken, whether at sunset or at midnight, is left to the master's 
IG 



182 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

pleasure. Ami, judging from our knowledge of the luodo in 
which sugnr i.s made, an<l cotton is raised and pressed, it is not 
too much to say, that the going down of the sun i.s by no means 
the signal of repose to the weary shivc. And let it not be for- 
gotten that the slave, within the short time allotted for rest, is 
under the necessity of preparing food for his meals ! ! (p. 15.) 

The master may, at his discretion, inflict any species of 
puntsiimkxt upon the person of his slave. 

If the power of the master to the extent hero implied were 
sanctioned by express law, we should have no claim to the char- 
acter of a civilized people. The very being of the slave would be 
in the hands of the master. Such is not the case ; on the con- 
trary, from the laws which I shall cite, it will be fully evident 
that, so far as regards the pages of the statute-book, the life, at least, 
of the slave is safe from the authorized violence of the master. 
The evil is not that laws are wanting, but that they- cannot be 
enforced ; not that they sanction crime, but that they do not 
punish it. And this arises chiefly, if not solely, from the cause 
which has been more than once mentioned, the exclusion of the 
testimony, on the trial of a white person, of all those who are not 
white. 

There was a time when, in all the old States in which slavery is 
still maintained, the murder of a slave, whether by his master 
or a third person, was punislied by a pecuniary fine only. Soutli 
Carolina was the last of these States in which a change in this 
particular was made. 

Since then, (Dec. 20, 1821,) the wilful, malicious, and premeditated 
killing of a slave, by whomsoever perpetrated, is a capital offence 
in all the slaveholding States, (p. 20.) 

The state of the hiw in Virginia will appear from 
the following : 

On September 1, 1849, whilst the act of 1847 was yet in force, 
one of the most, if not the most, toilful, malicioiis, and deliberate 
murders was committed by the master of a slave, by wilful and 
excessive ivhipping and cruel treatment, Avhich the criminal records 
of any country have transmitted. The case is reported in 7 Grai- 
tan's Reports, G79, under the name of Southerns case. The opinion 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 183 

of the coutt gives this narrative :—" The indictment contains 
fifteen counts, and sets forth a case of the most cruel and exces- 
sive wliippiiig and torture. The negro wns tied to a tree and 
whipped with switches. When Souther became fatigued with 
the labour of whipping, he called upon a negro man of his, and 
made him cob Sam with a shingle. He also made a negro woman 
of his help to cob him. And, after cobbing and whipping, he 
applied fire to the body of his slave, about his back, belly, and 
private parts. He then caused him to be rubbed down with hot 
water, in which pods of red pepper had been steeped. The negro 
was also tied to a log, and to the bed-post with ropes, which 
choked him, and he was kicked and stamped by Souther, This 
Bort of punishment was continued and repeated until the negro 
died under its infliction." 

The slave's offences, according to the master's allegation, were 
" getting drunk," and dealing with two persons,— zt-AiV^ men, — 
who were present, and witnessed the whole of the horrible trans- 
action, without, as far as it appears in the report, having inter- 
fered in any way to save the life of the slave. 

The jury found the master guilty of murder in the second de- 
gree."^ The court expressed a clear opinion that it was murder 
in \hQ first degree, under the act of 1847. What would have been 
held to be the proper verdict, had the existing law, in which 
'' wilful and excessive whipping," &c., are left out, been in force, 
is very doubtful, (p. 21.) 

In Missouri, the statute on crimes, in treating of homicide, 
makes no mention of colour or condition of the person slain. 

The fourth section defines justifiable homicide in the same un- 
discriminating language, but it is not necessary to extract it. 

The fifth section is in these words : — " Homicide shall be deemed 
excusable, when committed by accident or misfortune, in either of 
the following cases: First, in lawfully correcting a child, appren- 
tice, servant or slave." 

The same language is used in regard to the correction of the 
child, apprentice, servant and sl.vve, and the one word laufull;/ is 
prefixed as well to the slave as to the child or apprentice. But 
what is lauful correction of a child or apprentice is accuratoly de- 
fined and easily explained ; the common law has settled that, and 

* Punishment, by statute, might be five years imprisonment. 



184 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

the transgression of the limits is an indictable offence. But there 
is no such limit in regard to the power of the master over the slave. 
He may use any instrument, and may inflict any number of blows 
which he may choose. This is a principle of slave law, it is be- 
lieved, of universal application. In North Carolina it has been 
expressly affirmed by the Supreme Court, and its necessity asserted 
and defended in an elaborate opinion of the Chief Justice, on 
behalf of the whole court. State vs. Mann, 2 Devereux's Rep. 
263, 266. 

Here follows the already recited opinion of Judge 
Euffin. (p. 22.) 

Mr. Bryan Edwards, who, it will be recollected, was the cham- 
pion of slavery and of the slave trade, in his History of the West Indies, 
Vol. II., Book IV., Chap. V., after speaking of certain regulations 
which had been proposed for the melioration of slavery, uses this 
language : — "But these and all other regulations, which can be 
devised for the protection and improvement of this unfortunate 
class of people will be of little avail, unless, as a preliminary 
measure, they shall be exempted /totw the cruel hardships to which 
they are frequently liable, of being sold by creditors, and made sub- 
ject, in a course of administration by executors, to the payment 
of all debts, both of simple contract and specialty." This he 
stigmatises as a ^^ grievance remorseless and tyrannical ifi its princi- 
ples, and dreadful in its effects;''^ the revival "in a country that 
pretends to Christianity of the odious severity of the Roman law, 
which declared sentient beings to be inter res; a practice injurious 
to the national character and disgraceful to humanity." "A good 
negro," continues he, "with his wife and young family rising 
about him, is seized on by the sherifi^'s officei', forcibly separated 
from his wife and children, dragged to public auction, purchased 
by a stranger, and perhaps sent to terminate his miserable exist- 
ence in the mines of Mexico ; and all this without any crime or 
demerit on his part, real or pretended. He is punished because 
his master is unfortunate." 

"It would be in vain for me to attempt to augment the horror 
which every well-regulated mind must feel from this eloquent 
description of the cruelty of the law. For humanity's sake, I 
rejoice to say that the sphere of its operation is by no means co- 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 185 

extensive "vrith tlie prevalence of slavery. With the exception 
of the British colonies in the "West Indies, and 1 suppose at Dcraa- 
rara, and perhaps in the small islands belonging to the Dutch, it 
obtains only in the Republican States of North America P^ (p. 34.) 

How great tlic change in the disposition of the 
hiw-making power in Virginia, since 1776, may be 
seen from the following 

Preamble to the Constitution of Virginia, promulgated on the 
29th JVine, 1776: — "Whereas George the Third, king, &c., here- 
tofore intrusted with the exercise of the kingly office in this 
government, hath endeavoured to pervert the same into a detesta- 
ble and insupportable tyranny, by prompting our negroes to rise 
in arms among us. — those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use 

OF HIS NEGATIVE, HE HATH REFUSED US PERMISSION TO EXCLUDE BY 
LAW." (p. 37.) 

Slaves cannot redeem themselves, nor obtain a change of 
masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such 
change necessary for their personal safety. 

This proposition holds good as to the right of redemption in all 
the slaveholding States ; and equally true is it as respects the 
right to compel a change of masters, except in Louisiana and 
Kentucky, (p. 38.) 

In Turkey the law is still more favourable to the slave. "For 
he may allege contrariety of tempers, whereby they cannot live to- 
gether, and the judge will decree that the patron shall carry his 
slave to market and sell him." — Life of Hon. Sir Dudley North, 
p. 68, of Vol. III. of lives of his three brothers, by Roger North. 
London edition of 1826. (p. 39.) 

As to the rejection of slave testimony — 

We must have recourse to the civil law for its probable origin. 
*'The general rule of that law certainly was that a slave could 
not be a witness, though there were exceptions to it, founded in 
reason and policy ; for men of that condition might be examined 
when the welfare of the State, in cases of weight and difficulty, 
required such a departure from general rules, or when other evi- 
dence teas unattainable. Stephen's West India Slavery, 171, cilittj 
16* 



18G sou T HERN SLAVERY. ^, 

Voetus* Commentary on the Pandects. This latter exception, it is 
obvious, destroys the rule if we are to understand by it that a 
slave might be examined, in the defect of other proof, for the 
inculpation of any olFender against the laws. And such I sup- 
pose to be the true meaning, since " slaves might always (among 
the Romans) induce an investigation, by flying to the statutes of 
the princes." Cooper's Justinian, 412, (p. 47.) 

And such a right it seems probable obtained in 3Iassachuseits, 
as far as we are informed, without inconvenience ; on the con- 
trary, I have no doubt, with decisive public advantage, (p. 49.) 

Add to the instance of Massachusetts, given by 
Judge Stroud, the following from the laws of the 
Yisi-Goths : 

"If no one guilty of, or an accomplice in, a crime ought to 
remain unpunished, with how much more reason ought he to be 
condemned who has wickedly and rashly committed a homicide ! 
Thus, as masters, in their pride often put their slaves to death 
without any fault of the latter, it is proper altogether to extir- 
pate this license, and to ordain that the present law shall be 
forever observed by all. No master or mistress shall put to 
death, without public trial, any of their slaves, male or female, 

or any person dependent on them Indeed, if the 

slave, with a fatal audacity, resisting his master, has struck, or 
attempted to strike, him with a weapon, with a stone, or with 
any other kind of a blow, and if the master, in defending him- 
self, has killed the slave in his passion, the master shall be in 
no way subject to the punishment of homicide. But it shall be 
necessary to prove that the event took place thus, and that hy 
the testimony or oath of the slaves, male or female, who shall have 
been present, and by the oath of the author of the deed him- 
self." (For. Jud. lib. XI., tit. XV. 

Compare with the above -the following specimen 
of the peculiar character of Southern slave legisla- 
tion : 

Be it enacted. That if any slaves shall suffer in life, limb, or 
member, or shall be maimed, beaten or abused, contrary to the 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 187 

directions and true intent and meaning of this act, when no 
tvhite persons shall be present, or, being present, shall neglect or 
refuse to give evidence, or be examined on oath concerning the 
same : in every such case the owner, or rather person, who 
shall have care and government of such slave, and in whose 
possession or power such slave shall be, shall be deemed, taken, 
reputed and adjudged to be guilty of such offence, and shall be 
proceeded against accordingly without further proof, unless such 
owner, or other person as aforesaid, can make the contrary ap- 
pear by good and sufficient evidence, or shall by his own oath, 
clear and exculpate himself : which oath every court, where such 
offence shall be tried, is hereby empowered to administer, and 
to acquit the offender, if clear proof of the offence be not made by 
two witnesses at least." 2 Brevard's Dig., 242. (p. 50.) 

Thus a law which professes to be for the protec- 
tion of the life of the slave, turns out to be, in fact, 
for the security of the murdering master; for, 
whereas the testimony of one white witness might 
otherwise have sufficed for his conviction, this statute 
requires two at least! In what fitting terms can we 
characterize such a law ? 

A slave cannot be a party to a civil suit; but, 
through a friend, he may sue for his alleged freedom. 

^^ But in case judgment shall be given for the defendant, the said 
court is hereby fully empowered to inflict such corporal punishment, 
not extending to life or limb, on the word of the plaintiff, as they in 
their discretion shall think fit. Provided, that in any action or suit 
to be brought in pursuance of the direction of this act, the bur- 
den OF THE PROOF shall lay upon the plaintiff, and it shall always be 
presumed that every Negro, Indian,* Mulatto, and Mestizos, is a slave^ 



* Bishop Hopkins charges the enslavement of the Indians, 
especially, to "the Puritans of New England." The charge ia 
not strictly true in their case at all ; but it seems to have a just 
application elsewhere. 

It may excite the surprise of some, to discover Indians and 
their offspring comprised in the doom of perpetual slavery ; yet 



188 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

unless the cojitranj he made io appear, (the Indians in amity with 
this government excepted, in Avhich case the burden of proof 
shall be on the defendant.) 2 Brevard's Dig., 229-30. 

In Georgia, the act of Assembly of May 10, 1770, is almost 
literally a copy of this of South Carolina. See Prince's Digest, 
446; 2 Cobb's Digest, 971. 

It is impossible for any humane and reflecting person to ex- 
amine the provisions of the above law, without the conviction 
of its injustice and cruelty. The Negro, &c., claims to be free ; 
and yet he can bring no suit to investigate his master's title to 
restrain him of his liberty, unless some one can be found merci- 
ful enough to become his guardian, subject, in any event, to the 



not only is incidental mention made of them as slaves to be met 
with in the laws of most of the States of our confederacy, but 
in one, at least, direct legislation may be cited to sanction their 
enslavement. In Virginia, "by an act passed in the year 1679, 
it was, for the better encouragement of soldiers, declared, that when 
Indian pkisoners should be taken in a war in which the colony 
was then engaged, should be free purchase to the soldiers taking 
them. In 1682, it was declared, that all servants brought into 
this country, (Virginia,) by sea or land, not being Christians, 
whether Negroes, Moors, Mulattoes, or Indians, (except Turks 
and Moors in amity with Great Britain,) and all Indians which 
should thereafter be sold by neighbouring Indians, or any other 
trafficking with us, as slaves, should be slaves, to all intents and 
purposes. (Stroud, p. 5.) 

And in the State of New Jersey, it was decided by the Su- 
preme Court, in the year 1797, •' That Indians might be held as 
slaves." No law was adduced to show the origination of such a 
right, but it appeared by several acts of Assembly, one of which 
was as early as 1713-14, that they were classed with Negroes 
and Mulattoes, as slaves. Chief Justice Kinsey remarked, *' They 
(Indians) have been so long recognized as slaves, in our law, 
that it would be as great a violation of the rights of property to 
establish a contrary doctrine at the present day, as it would in 
the case of Africans, and as useless to investigate the manner iu 
which they originally lost their freedom. — The State vs. Wag- 
goner, 1 Halstead's Reports, 374-376. (p. 6.) 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 189 

expense and trouble of conducting his cause, and, in case of 
failure, to the costs of the suit. His judges and jurors will, in 
all probability, be slaveholders, and interested therefore, in some 
measure, in the question, Avhich they are to try. The whole com- 
munity in which he lives may, so few are the exceptions, be said 
to be hostile to his success. Being a Negro, &c., by the words 
of the act, the burden of the proof rests upon him, and he is pre- 
sumed to be a slave till he makes the contrary appear. This is 
to be effected through the instrumentality of white witnesses, as 
has been just shoAvn, exclusive of the testimony of those who are 
not white, even though they may be free, and of the fairest char- 
acter. And, lastly, notwithstanding all these obstacles to the 
ascertaining the truth of his allegations, the terror is superadded, 
should he not succeed in convincing the judge and jury of his 
right of freedom, of an infliction of corporal punishment to any extent 
short of capital execution, or the deprivation of a limb! ! ! And in 
Georgia, "should death happen b}' accident in giving this legal 
(moderate) correction, according to the terms of the constitution 
already quoted, it will be no crime! (p. 52.) 

In 1696, the question, whether the baptism of a negro slave, with- 
out THE PRIVITY OR CONSENT OF HIS MASTER, emancipated the 
slave, underwent an elaborate discussion before the judges of the 
King's Bench. Owing to a misconception of the form of the action, 
a final decision was not given, and the plaintiflF being, of course, 
unsuccessful on that occasion, the doubts whichrhad resulted from 
the former case were strengthened rather than impaired. 

The arguments of the counsel for the defendant are suflBciently 
curious to deserve transcription, "Being baptized according to 
the use of the church, he (the slave) is thereby made a Chris- 
tian, and Christianity is inconsistent with slavery. And this was 
allowed even in the time when the Popish religion was estab- 
lished, as appears by Littleton; for in those days, if a villain 
had entered into religion, and was professed as they called it, 
the lord could not seize him ; and the reason there given is, be- 
cause he was dead in law, and if the lord might take him out of 
his cloister, then he could not live according to his religion. The 
like reason may now be given for baptism being incorporated 
into the laws of the land ; if the duties which arise tlioreby can- 
not be performed in a state of servitude, the baptism must be a 



190 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

manumission. That such duties cannot be performed is plain ; 
for the persons baptized are to be contirmed by the diocesan, 
when they can give an account of their faith, and are enjoined, 
by several acts of Parliament, to come to church. But if the 
lord hath still an absolute property over him, then he might send 
him far enough from the performance of those duties, viz., into 
Turkey, or any other country of infidels, where they neither can 
nor will be suffered to exercise the Christian religion." 

In conclusion, the counsel remarks: "It is observed among 
the Turks that they do not make slaves of those of their own re- 
ligion, though taken in war ; and if a Christian be so taken, yet 
if he renounce Christianity and turn Mahometan, he doth thereby obtain 
his freedom. And if this custom be allowed among infidels, then 
baptism, in a Christian nation, as this is, should be immediate 
enfranchisement to them, as they should thereby acquire the 
privileges and immunities enjoyed by those of the same religion, 
and be entitled to the laws of England." See 5 Modern Reports, 
190, 191, Chamberline vs. Harvey, (p. 67.) 

And yet, to remove the " vain apprehension" that 
negroes, by receiving the sacrament of baptism, are 
manumitted and set free, solemn acts have been 
passed to the contrary in Maryland and South Caro- 
lina. Brevard's Dig. 229. 

It is enacted in Georgia, " If any slave shall presume to strike 
any white person, such slave upon trial and conviction before the 
justice or justices, according to the directions of this act, shall 
for the first offence suffer such punishment as the said justice or 
justices shall in his or their discretion think fit, not extending 
to life or limb ; and for the second offence suffer death. Prince's 
Dig. 450. 2 Cobb's Dig. 976. (p. 68.) 

And by the negro act of 1740, of South Carolina, it is declared : 
— "If any slave who shall be out of the house or plantation, 
where such slave shall live or shall be usually employed, or with- 
out some white person in company with such slave, shall refuse 
to submit to undergo the examination of any white person, it 
shall be lawful for any such white person to pursue, apprehend, 
and moderately correct such slave ; and if such slave shall assault 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 191 

and strike such white person, such slave may be lawfully killed ! ! " 
Brevard's Dig. 231. (p. C9.) 

The cruelty of the Criminal Codes of Slave States, 
in relation to the slaves, may be seen and inferred 
from the following results of the examination of 
those of Virginia and Mississippi. 

By the code of Yirginia there are sixty-seven 
crimes for which a slave is punished with deaths and 
no alternative ; while for the same crimes, the pun- 
ishment of whites varies from one to twenty years' 
imprisonment; in twenty-three cases, one year being 
considered penalty enough. 

By the code of Mississippi there are thirty-eight 
offences for which a slave must suffer death ; but for 
the punishment of which, in the case of white per- 
sons, no provision is made by statute in twenty cases, 
and eight of them are no offences at common law; 
in four cases more, the punishment of whites is only 
payment of damages and imprisonment not exceed- 
ing six months; in three cases, a discretionary fine 
and imprisonment for one year; and in four other 
cases, the whole punishment may be a fine of three 
hundred dollars ! (See pp. 77 to 88.) 

" The indulgent treatment of the slaves by which the Spaniards 
are so honourably distinguished, and the ample and humane code 
of laws, which they have enacted and also enforce, for the pro- 
tection of the blacks, both bond and free, occasioned many of the 
Indian slaves (i. e. of East Florida) who were apprehensive of 
falling into the power of the Americans, (i. e., citizens of tlio 
United States,) and also most of the free people of colour, who 
resided in St, Augustine, to transport themselves to Uavana as 
soon as they heard of the approach of the American authorities."-— 
See ''Notices of East Florida, with an account of the Seminolo 
nation of Indiana, by a recent traveller in the Province." p. 42. 



192 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

From the tenor of many of Lis remarks, the writer is evidently 
an inhabitant of one of our slaveholding States, (p. 71.) 

"Every slave who shall endeavour to delude or entice any 
slave to run away and leave this province, every such slave and 
slaves and his or her accomplices, aiders, and abettors, shall, 
upon conviction as aforesaid, sulfer death.^' 2 Brevard's Dig. 
233, act of 1740. (p. 72.) 

After an experiment of eleven years' duration, the legislature 
relented so far as to declare, "That whereas by, &c., of the act 
entitled, &c., it is (among other things contained) enacted, 'That 
every slave, who shall endeavour to delude or entice -any slave 
to run away and leave this province, shall, upon conviction, suffer 
death,' which is a punishment too great for the nature of the 
offence, as such offender might afterwards alter his intentions, Be it 
therefore enacted, That such part of the said paragraph as re- 
lates only to slaves endeavouring to delude or entice other slaves 
to run away and leave this province, shall not operate to take 
effect, unless it shall appear that such slave (so endeavouring to 
delude or entice other slaves to run away and leave this province) 
shall have actually prepared provisions, arms, ammunition, horse 
or horses, or any boat, canoe, or other vessel, whereby their in- 
tention shall be manifested:'' 2 Brev. Dig. 244, act of 1751. It is 
hardly necessary to remind the intelligent reader that iho, princi- 
ple upon which the act of 1740 was founded is retained in the 
amendment of 1761. The endeavour on the part of a slave to 
entice another to run away, is, in both laws, regarded as a crime 
worthy of death. What shall constitute the evidence of this endeavour 
is defined in the amendment,— namely, "the preparing provi- 
sions, &c., whereby the intention shall be manifested." And this 
is the only melioration of a law which it is acknowledged in the 
same breath, imposed a punishment too severe for the offence! ! 
And such is the law still after the lapse of a century, (p. 72.) 

Bisliop Hopkins boasts of three thousand slaves 
having been emancipated in one year, forgetting to 
tell us that about one hundred thousand new recruits 
to slavery had been added by birth in the same pe- 
riod. The spirit of the system in reference to eman- 
cipation may be seen from the following : 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 193 

In addition to the obstacle to emancipation which ia created by 
the saving in favour of creditoi'S, a very extraordinary one is 
opposed on behalf of the widows of deceased slaveholders. For 
where a widow is entitled by law to one-third of her deceased 
husband's personal estate, unless he shall have left sufficient 
other personal estate, after payment of his debts, to satisfy her 
claim of one-third, his slaves, though declared to be free by his 
last will, shall nevertheless not be free, but shall be held liable 
for the third to which the widow is entitled. (Vir. Rev. Code, 
435. Mississippi Rev. Code, 386. 2 Litt. and Swi., Kentucky, 
1246.) 

But it is in the mode by which emancipation is to be effected 
that the most formidable difficulties arise. In South Carolina, 
Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, it is only by authority of the 
legislature specially granted, that a valid emancipation can be made. 
It is not enough that a penalty is imposed upon the benevolence 
of a master who m^y permit his slave to work for himself; a 
slave-owner must continue a slave-owner (unless he disposes of 
his chattels by sale) until he can induce the legislature to indulge 
him in the wish to set his captives free. Prince's Dig. 450 (act 
of Dec. 5, 1801); James Dig. 398 (act of 1820); Soulmin's Dig. 
032. Mississippi Rev. Code, 386. 

Formerly, in North Carolina, a slave could not be manumitted 
except for meritorious services, to be adjudged of and allowed by 
the county court (Hayward's Manual, 525) ; but by the Revised 
Statutes of 1836-7, the court on the petition, in writing, of the 
master, and his entering into a bond with two sufficient securi- 
ties, in the sum of one thousand dollars, conditioned that the 
slave so to be emancipated shall honestly and correctly demean 
himself, wldle he shall remain within the State, and that he will, 
witliin ninety days after granting the prayer of the petitioner to 
emancipate him, leave the State, and never afterwards come icithin 
the same, may permit such emancipation. Tlie rights of creditors 
are expressly saved. 

Tlie law of Tennessee on this subject requires the presentation 
of a petition to the county court, "setting forth the intention 
and motives for such emancipation ;" and these must be consist- 
ent, in the opinion of the court, with the interest an<l policy of the 
State, to authorize its reception. The emancipator must give a 
17 



194 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

bond with sufficient security conditioned that the emancipated 
slave shall forthwith remove from the State. Laws of Tennessee, 
277-9. (Act of 1801, ch. 27; and of 1881, ch. 102.) 

Mississippi has combined in one act all the obstacles to eman- 
cipation which are to be met with in the laws of the other slave- 
holding States. Thus, the emancipation must be by an instru- 
ment in writing, a last will or deed, &c., under seal, attested by at 
least two credible witnesses, or acknowledged in the court of the county 
or corporation, where the emancipator resides; and proof satisfac- 
tory to the General Assembly must be adduced that the slave has done 
some meritorious act for the benefit of his master, or rendered some 
distinguished service to the State; all of which circumstances are but 
prerequisites, and are of no efficacy until a special act of Assembly 
sanctions the emancipation ; — to which may be added, as has 
been already stated, a saving of the rights of creditors, and the pro- 
tection of the widow's third. Mississippi Rev. Code, 385-6. (Act 
of June 18, 1822.) 

In Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, Maryland, and Arkansas, 
greater facility is afforded to emancipation. By the last Consti- 
tution of Virginia, "slaves hereafter emancipated shall forfeit 
their freedom by remaining in the Commonwealth more than 
twelve months after they become actually free, and shall be re- 
duced TO SLAVERY under such regulations as may be prescribed 
bylaw." (pp. 98-99.) 

In the Revised Statutes of Louisiana are these enactments : — 
**If any white person shall be convicted of being the author, 
printer, or publisher of any written or printed paper or papers 
within this State, or shall use any language with the intent to 
disturb the peace or security of the same, in relation to the 
slaves of the people of this State, or to diminish that respect 
which is commanded to free people of colour for the whites by law, or 
to destroy that line of distijiction which the law has established between 
the several classes of the community, such person shall be adjudged 
guilty of high misdemeanor, and shall be fined in a sum not less 
than three hundred dollars, nor exceeding one thousand dollars, 
and moreover imprisoned for a term not less than six months, nor 
exceeding three years." Statutes of Louisiana, 1852. (p. 554.) 

Whosoever shall write, print, publish, or distribute, anything 
having a tendency to produce discontent among the free coloured 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 195 

population of the State, shall, on conviction thereof before any 
court of competent jurisdiction, be sentenced to imprisonment 
AT HARD LABOR FOR LIFE, OF SUFFER i>EATii, at the discretion of 
the court." Ibid. (p. 208.) 

"Whosoever shall make use of language in any public dis- 
course from the bar, the bench, the stage, the pulpit, or in any 
place Avhatsoever, or 'whoever shall make use of language in 
private discourses or conversations, or shall make use of signs 
or actions, having a tendency to produce discontent among the free 
coloured population of this State, or excite insubordination among 
the slaves, or whosoever shall knowingly be instrumental in 
bringing into this State any paper, pamphlet, or book, having 
such tendency as aforesaid, shall, on conviction thereof before 
any court of competent jurisdiction, suffer imprisonment at hard 
labor not less than three years nor more than twenty-one years, or 
DEATH, at the discretion of the court." Ibid. (Stroud, p. 104.) 

The following laws ^vere enacted in the slave code 
of the territory of Kansas; and but for the opposi- 
tion of Eepublicans, would have been sanctioned by 
a slaveholding and Democratic Congress, and thus 
stamped with the authority of the United States 
Government : 

"Section 11. If any person print, M'rite, introduce into, pub- 
lish, or circulate, or cause to be brought into, printed, written, 
published or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or assist in bring- 
ing into, printing, publishing, or circulating within this territory 
any book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, handbill or circular 
containing any statements, arguments, opinions, sentiments, 
doctrine, advice or innuendo calculated to produce a disorderly, 
dangerous, or rebellious disaliection among the slaves in this 
territory, or to induce such slaves to escape from the service 
of their masters or to resist autliority, he shall be guilty of 
felony, and be punished by imprisonnicnt and hard labour for a 
term not less than five years. 

" Section 12. If any person, by speaking or writing, assert oi* 
maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in this 



196 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

territory, or shall introduce into this territory, print, publish, 
write, circulate, or cause to be introduced into this territory, 
written, printed, published, or circulated in this territory, any 
book, paper, magazine, pamphlet or circular, containing any 
denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in this territory, such 
person shall be deemed guilty of felony, and be punished by im- 
prisonment at hard labor for a term of not less than two years." 
(p. 108.) 



On the 15th September, 1863, Judge Stroud pub- 
lished the following communication over his own 
signature, which contains a summary of the whole 
subject: 

" From several pamphlets recently published and 
extensively circulated, it has become evident that a 
new issue in Pennsylvania party politics has been 
inaugurated, viz. : Whether negro slavery, as it is 
maintained in the Southern States now in rebellion 
against the national government is consistent with 
the Christian religion ? 

" I deem it proper, therefore, in order that every 
one may be enabled to judge for himself on this im- 
portant subject, to give a very brief summary of the 
legal incidents of Southern slavery. Every part and 
parcel of this summary may be authenticated by the 
statutes of one or other of those States, and the re- 
ported decision of their highest courts of judicature. 

" It is a fundamental principle of negro slavery 
that a slave is a thing — a chattel wholly under the 
dominion of his master, subject to be bought and sold 
precisely as if he were a horse or a mule. He may 
be fed and clothed much or little, as his master may 
prescribe — may be compelled to labor as well on one 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 197 

day as anothor, and as hard and as long as bis mas- 
ter may direct. 

'^ The slave has no legal right whatever ; cannot 
own anything; may be forbidden all society with his 
fellows ; may be kept in the most abject ignorance ; 
is not allowed to be instructed to read; is without 
any legal provision for acquiring a knowledge of 
his religious duties ; incapable of a lawful marriage ; 
denied all authority over those who are admitted to 
be his natural offspring; liable to have them at any 
age torn from him, without the slightest consultation 
or deference to his judgment or his feelings; and 
liable himself to be torn from them, and from their 
mother, with whom he has been permitted and en- 
couraged to cohabit as his wife, ne may be thus 
ruthlessly carried to a returnless distance, not only 
from his children and their mother, but from all 
else that he may liold dear. 

" The law also expressly sanctions his master in 
beating him with a horsewhip or cowskin, in chaining 
him, putting him in irons, compelling him to wear 
pronged iron collars, confining him in prison, hunt- 
ing him with dogs, and when outlawed, as he may be 
for running away, he may be killed by any one to 
whom he may refuse to surrender. 

" The whole of this summary I pledge myself to 
maintain in its literal and full extent, according to 
the law of one or another of the Southern slavehold- 
ing States. 

Geo. M. Stuoud." 

Such are some of the features of negro slavery as 
maintained by law in the Soutliorn States. If it be 
Baid, that, after all, these laws do not compel the 

17* 



198 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

master to maltreat his slave, tliongb they may pro- 
tect him in so doing, that good masters may never- 
theless treat their slaves kindly, that cases of out- 
rageous cruelty are probably exceptional, such stories 
being greatly exaggerated and often false; and, in 
fine, that instances of cruelty and outrage may occur 
in any society; — I answer, it is freely admitted that 
there may be some masters who, as Chrysostom said 
of Abraham, do not treat their servants as slaves; 
but these laws being made, not by some tyrant over 
whose acts the slaveholders have no control, but by 
the slaveholders themselves, show incontestably the 
animus of the system, show what those slaveholders 
in general mean to be at liberty to do; and why 
should they claim this liberty unless they mean to 
exercise it ? The overwhelming probability is that, 
in general, the practical w^orking of the system is 
tenfold worse than its published and acknowledged 
theory. Slaveholders are not likely to paint their 
system worse than it is. On its OAvn public confes- 
sion, therefore, we may impeach it before the com- 
mon judgment of mankind as a monstrous and mea- 
sureless wrong; and most assuredly that judgment 
will not pronounce an acquittal. " Slavery as main- 
tained in the Southern States" is wrong, morally 
wrong. 

But is slavery a sin? The defenders of slavery 
have, of late, made a great point of denying this. 
Bishop Hopkins strenuously denies it. Judge Wood- 
ward, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, has 
said, in a political speech, " If it be a sin, I agree 
there is an end to my argument. But what right 
has the abolitionist to pronounce it a sin ? . . . If a 
sin, then it is a violation of some Divine law; for sin 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 199 

is tho transgression of the law. Now I deny that 
any such law has ever been revealed." 

Here, then, the issue is joined. Will the Jiidgo 
deny that every wrong against man is a sin against God^ 
whether expressly forbidden in the Bible or not? 
But he will say, it is because God has commanded 
us to obey the magistrate and the laws, and, there- 
fore, every violation of the laws is a violation of 
God's commandment. True, but God has commanded 
us to obey the law of reason and conscience, as well 
as the laws of the State ; every violation of that law, 
therefore, is a violation of God's law. "All unright- 
eousness is sin.'' 

Will the Judge deny that there is a law — a law of 
Qod — engraven in our reason, as well as that which 
is written in tho pages of Scripture ? The revealed 
law of God is not substituted for the moral law 
written in man's heart and conscience. Eevelation 
takes man's moral and rational nature for granted; 
it addresses itself to that nature, and without that na- 
ture it coidd not be so much as understood. Chris- 
tianity neither annuls nor contradicts the natural 
reason and conscience, but enlightens, elevates, and 
enlarges them. This natural law the heathen had, 
while destitute of revelation; and it was the law of 
God. " Because that which may be known of God 
is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto 
them .... so that they are without excuse .... 
knowing the judgment of God, that they which do 
such things are worthy of death." " For whon the 
Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature tho 
things contained in the law, these, having not tho 
law, are a law unto themselves: which show tho 
work of tho law written in their hearts, their con- 



200 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

science also bearing witness, and their thoughts in- 
wardly accusing or else excusing them." Eom. i. 19, 
32, and ii. 14, 15. As for the •' natural man," in 1 Cor. 
ii. 14, " who receiveth not the things of the Spirit," 
he is not the physical or ethical^ but the " psj'chical," 
the miimal man. Says the judicious Hooker : " By 
force of the light of reason, wherewith God illumin- 
eth every man that cometh into the world, men being 
enabled to know truth from falsehood, and good from 
evil, do thereby learn in many things what the will 
of God is; which will himself not revealing by any 
extraordinary means unto them, but they by natural 
discourse attaining the knowledge thereof, seem the 
makers of those laws, which indeed are his, and they 
but only the finders of them out." " The very Law 
of JSTature itself, which no man can deny but God 
hath instituted, is not of God unless that be of God 
whereof God is the author as well by the way of 
natural light as of supernatural revelation." " The 
will of God which we are to judge our actions by, 
no sound divine in the world ever denied to be in 
part made manifest even by light of nature, and not 
by Scripture alone." " Bat so it is, the name of the 
light of nature is made hateful with men; the ' star 
of reason and learning' [the unanswerable argument 
of 'French Infidels' and 'German Eationalists' had 
not then been heard of — would it have silenced 
Hooker ?] and all other such like helps, beginneth 
no otherwise to be thought of than if it were an 
unlucky comet ; or as if God had so accursed it that 
it should never shine or give light in things concern- 
ing our duty any way towards him, but be esteemed 
as that star in the Eevelation called Wormwood, 
which being fallen from heaven, maketh rivers and 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 201 

waters in which it fallcth so bitter, that men tasting 
them die thereof. A number there are who think 
they cannot admire as they ought the power and 
authority of the word of God, if in things divine 
they should attribute any force to man's reason. 
For which cause they never use reason so willingly as 
to disgrace reason/'* Indeed Hooker's great work en- 
tire may be considered a defence of the light and law 
of nature and reason. Moreover, it is not the word, 
nor even the will, of God, that constitutes the law of 
riii-ht or of truth. Eiicht and truth have their roots 
in the nature of things, in the very being of God, 
and are not the creatures of his will. God can no 
more create or annihilate the right by an act of his 
will or an utterance of his word than he can create 
or annihilate himself The right is not right because 
God wills it, but God wills it because it is right. 
Otherwise, how could we attribute a moral character 
to God? He could have no such character at all 
unless the acts of his will could be compared with 
some standard independent of them. This absolute 
and immutable law of right is revealed to us partly 
in our natural reason and partly by a supernatural 
instruction. Unless it were, in part at least, revealetl 
to us in our reason, and so revealed that we could 
rely upon it, how could we appCal to the pure mo- 
rality of the Scriptures as a confirmation of tlieir 
divine origin ? In order that any such confirmation 
could be conceived of, must we not have a Icnowlodgo 
of the moral law with which their cliaracter is com- 
]nared, in some way independent of tlieir own dicta- 
tion 'i 

* Ecclcs. Pol., Book T. 8, and Book IK., 1, S. 



202 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

But, at all events, say Bishop Hopkins and Judge 
Woodward, " slavery is nowhere declared to be a 
sin ill the word of God," and is it well to be wise 
above that which is written ? or, as the Bishop says, 
" shall we be wiser than the Almighty?" 

It is admitted : slavery is not expressly declared 
in Scripture to be a sin. But no more is the slave- 
trade, or cannibalism, or private war, or suicide, 
(for, the original word for " kill," in the sixth com- 
mandment, is never applied to killing one's self any 
more than to killing a sheep,) or gambling, or keep- 
ing bawdy houses, or stock-jobbing or gladiatorial 
shows, or bull-fights, or polygamy, or many other 
things which would hardly be considered now as 
"Divine institutions." And if the Judge, as a law- 
yer, alleges that these, or most of them, are wrong 
because they are forbidden by the laws of the land; 
then I observe that some things are admitted to bo 
wrong, — and consequently sinful, 1 suppose, — without 
being expressly forbidden in Scripture; and, besides, 
I ask whether these are wrong simply because the 
law prohibits them, or whether the law prohibits 
them because they are w^rong? 

In conclusion, I invite attention to the following 
discourse of a Mormon Elder : 

DISCOURSE OF A MORMON ELDER) CONTAINING A 
BIBLE VIEW or POLYGAMY. 

My brethren, there is no one thing for which we, 
the true saints of God, are more reviled by the radi- 
cal and ranting sects around us, than for our going 
back to the Divine institution, and restoring the 
good old patriarchal custom, of having many wives; 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 203 

— an institution sanctioned, blessed, and even ex- 
pressly commanded by Almighty God; an institution 
never disapproved, or repealed, or abolished, by 
Jesus Christ, or his apostles; a custom which was 
practised by the holy patriarchs avIio walked with 
God, and was preserved as a privilege of his chosen 
people, sanctioned in their law and never disallowed 
by their prophets; (while many of the heathen na- 
tions, as the Eomans, for example, confined each 
man to one lawful wife;) a custom which began be- 
fore the flood, and has been continued in the world, 
without any reproof from Divine revelation, through 
all ages to the present time, especially among the 
descendants of the religious Shem, in whose tents 
God promised to dwell ; while it is only some tribes 
of Japhetic origin, and especially those among 
whom rationalism, infidelity, atheism, and all ungodli- 
ness have become rife, who have adopted and insisted. 
U2:)0n tlie opposite custom. 

" But polygamy," they say, " is a sin." If it is a 
bin, I agree there is an end to my argument. But 
what right have the monogamists to call polygamy 
a sin ? If a sin, then it is a violation of some Divine 
law; for sin is the transgression of the law. Now 
1 deny that any such law has ever been revealed. 
If there be such a law let them show" it to us in ex- 
I»ress terms. If they can find no such law, let I hem 
leave off their blas2")heni()us habit of denouncing 
polygamy as a sin — and the ver}' saints of (iod as 
ainncrs. 

Js it conceivable that (iod sliould liave walkrd 
lamiliarly witli Abraluun,sliouM have talked with him 
face to face, as a man tali-ielii wilb his iVicnd, should 
have consulted willi liiiii, as it worr, in roi^ard to 



204 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

what ho himself proposed to do, — as in the case of 
the Sodomites, whom he was about to punish, not 
for having many wives, observe, but for crimes 
which grew out precisely from their leaving the 
natural use of women — and yet should never have 
rebuked him for having more than one wife; if 
polygamy had been a sin — a sin in itself? And are 
these modern Christian sects purer and holier than 
Almighty God? Was not Jacob compelled, as it 
were, " by the Providence of God," to take two 
v^ives, when he sought but one; and afterwards led 
to add more, that he might beget the twelve patri- 
archs, and thus the promise to Abraham of the mul- 
tiplication of his seed be fulfilled ? — for to fulfil a 
jjroviise is surely as good a justification of any act as 
to fulfil a curse. 

Polygamy is not only thus sanctioned by God's 
presence, communion and blessing; but it is ex- 
pressly recognized and commanded in his law. In 
immediate connection with the solemn enactment 
about Hebrew servants, it is added; " If he take 
him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her 
duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." Ex. xxi.^ 10. 
Airain : " Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, 
to vex her^ to uncover her nakedness, beside the 
other in her lifetime." Lev. xviii. 18. Here the right 
of polygamy in general is implied. So in this pas- 
sage : " If a man take a wife and her mother, it is 
wickedness." Lev. xx. 14. Also : " if a man have two 
wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have 
borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; 
and if the first-born be hers that was hated," &c 
Deut. xxi. 15. Of the future king it was written : 
" Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 205 

liciirt turn not awii}-; neither shall he greatly miilti- 
pl}^ silver and gold." Dciit. xv. 17. The Puibbins 
restricted the " many wives" to more than three or 
four; but Solomon, who was wiser than they, ex- 
tended them to beyond a thousand. But there is 
one law by which polygamy is, in certain contingen- 
cies, expressly commanded: "If brethren dwell to- 
gether, and one of them die, and have no child, the 
wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a 
stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto 
her, take her to him to wife, and perform the duty 
of a husband's brother unto her." Deut. xxv. 5. And 
then an ignominious punishment is provided for the 
man who would not obey this precept ; and it is plain 
it made no difference whether he were already mar- 
ried or not. Now here is polygamy required and 
commanded by the Divine law ; and are our modern 
sectarians wiser than the Almighty ?* 

This law, neither Christ nor his Apost4es expressly 
abolished. They nowhere expressly prohibited po- 
13'gamy. Christ was entirely silent upon the sub- 
ject. It is true, an attempt has been made in cer- 
tain quarters to show that in Christ's comment upon 
tlie law of divorce, he indirectly prohibited polj'ga- 
m}', viz., when he declared : " If a man put away his 
wife, and marry another, he committeth adultery;" 
for, it is argued, if marrying another after divorcing 

* It has been satisfactorily and unanswerably proved by the 
iJisliop of Vermont, in his late work on Slavery, that slavery is 
a Divine institution. But we see here that the argument for 
polygiimy is stronger than that for slavery even; for it will 
hardly be pretended that the holding of slaves is positively en- 
joined upon any parties as an imperative duty, as wo sec that 
polygamy is in this Divine law. 
18 



20G so U TIIERN SLAVERY. 

the first is adultery, much more would it be, without 
divorcing her. This is sharp, but it will not do. 
The text probably means that the man is virtually 
guilty of adultery^ because he exposes his divorced wife to 
commit it; for in Christ's formal exposition of the 
law, in the Sermon on the Mount, he says : " But I 
say unto you, that whosoever putteth away his wife, 
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to com- 
mit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is 
divorced committeth adultery.'^ Now this must, in 
all reason, be received as furnishing the key for the 
interpretation of the other passages. See a late work 
of the Et. llev. John II. Hopkins, Bishop of the 
Diocese of Yermont, in which he restrains the mean- 
ing of the general law against man-stealing, found in 
one place, by a more specific law against stealing one 
of the children of Israel, found in another place. 

As to the injunction of the apostle Paul that "a 
Bishop should be the husband of one wife," the sects 
around us very strangely twist it into meaning, that 
he may be the husband of no wife at all ; but, at all 
events, must have but one ! while the true interpre- 
tation manifestly is, that he must be the husband of 
at least one wife, and may have as many more as he 
will. But even if the sectarian interpretation were 
the true one, it would not follow that polygamy was 
such a sin as to shut a man out of the communion of 
the apostolic church, but just the contrary; for if 
polygamy cut a man oif from the communion of the 
church, there would have been no occasion to tell 
Timothy not to ordain such a man as bishoj) or 
elder, since no such man could be so much as a sup- 
posable candidate for that office. Nor would it even 
follow that polygamy was any sin at all, unless a want 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 207 

of "aptness to teach," or having "unbelieving chil- 
dren or children accused of riot or unrul}^/' is a sin; 
for these are also to be taken into the account in the 
qualifications of a bishop. And if it were a sin in a 
bishop to have unbelieving or profligate, or unruly 
children, it must be equally a sin in all Christians. 
NoAV if a man had a son who was guilty of licentious 
conduct, though it were no fault of this man, it might 
be very expedient and proper that he should not be or- 
dained to the episcopate ; whether, in case of his son's 
committing debaucher}" after he, the father, was or- 
dained, it might be required that he should resign 
his office, does not appear. A bishop, therefore, 
may have been forbidden to have more than one wife, 
not because it was a sin in itself, but from some spe- 
cial motives of prudence and propriety, pertaining 
to the office. Thus, even following the monogamist's 
interpretation, there is nothing in the apostle's in- 
junction which necessarily militates against the right 
of polygamy. 

When the ultra-monogamists appeal from the 
higher authority of Scripture to the lower authority 
of the "early church,'' it must be borne in mind 
how early that church became corrupt, especially in 
regard to this very subject of marriage and celibacy. 
Yet for more than three hundred years that church 
never ventured to declare polygamy to be unlawful. 
It was at the council of Nice that laymen wore, for 
the first time, forbidden to have more than one wife, 
and this was after the conversion of Constant ine, 
ichen the Itoman law began to take preceJcnee of 
the Divine. But it is not to be forgotten that this 
game council, in the very face of St. Paul's injunction 
that a bishop or elder sliould be the husband of one 



208 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

wife, was upon the point of decreeing the perpetual 
celibacy of the clergy ; which was warded off only 
by the zealous opposition of old father Paphnutius. 
This principle of the celibacy of the clergy, how- 
ever, — a corrugation which seems to have crept into 
the church pari passu with that of the monogamy of 
the laity, — was soon after generally established, and 
has prevailed in far the larger part of the so-called 
Christian church to the present day; which may 
serve to show how much the authority of '^ the 
church" is worth in the interpretation of Scripture. 
Yet, it is remarkable that, so late as the beginning 
of the fifth century, we find no less a man than St. 
Augustine not venturing to deny the rightfulness of 
polygamy. " It is j^lain," says he, " that for a man, 
with the consent of his wife, to take another by 
whom he might have children, was right with the 
ancient fathers : ivhether or not it is also right Jiow, I 
would not venture to say."* It is true he elsewhere 
says : " It is not lawful to put away a barren wife 
and marry another, nor to have more than one wife 
living, — in our times, that is to say, and by the Roman 
custo7n"-\ Now if this is not inconsistent with his 
other statement, — and it is well understood that 
consistency is not one of the peculiar jewels of the 
early fathers, who seem to have blown hot or cold 

* Plane uxoris voluntate adhibere aliara, unde communes filii 
nascantur unius commixtione ac semine, alterius autem jure ac 
potestate, apud antiques patres fas erat: utrum et nunc fas sit, 
non temere dixerim. Aug. De Bono Conj. Cap. 15. 

f Possit enim homo dimittere sterilem uxorem, et ducere de 
qua filios habeat : et tamen non licet; et nostris quidem jam 
temporibus ac more Romano, nee superinducere ut amplius ha- 
beat quam unam vivam, Aug. De Bon. Conj. 7. 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 209 

as suited the present moment, — it is because he does 
not say in this last case, " it is not right," but " it is 
not kiwful;" — not notifas, but no7i licet; — and ho adds 
expressly, " in our times and by the Eoman custom;" 
showing plainly that he does not declare polygamy 
to be wrong by the Divine law, but simply " in our 
times" to be forbidden by the Eoman law. And we, 
latter day Saints, with full safety to our creed, may 
say as much, "in our times," of the laws of the 
United States, as " Saint" Augustine said, in his, of 
the laws of Eome. Indeed it is abundantly evident 
to any candid reader of history, that the doctrine of 
monogamy is of heathen origin, and was introduced 
into the Christian church from the Eoman law, in- 
troduced gradually with other corruptions, to the 
entire disregard of the teachings of Scripture, and 
of the holy, patriarchal institution of polygamy, 
which had been ordained and approved by God him- 
self. But were the Eoman jurists wiser than the 
Almighty ? [See note in Appendix.] 

Moreover, the benefits, moral as well as physical, 
flowing from the system of polygamy are incalcula- 
ble. It puts an end to whoredom and adultery at 
once, by removing their occasion. We have no 
bawdy-houses, no actions for crim. con., no starving 
seamstresses. Think of the tens of thousands of 
these poor creatures, in London, New York, and 
other Christian (?) cities, who are literally compelled 
to give themselves up to prostitution or to starve; 
and compare them with the well-iVd, ha]ipy wives 
of our teeming and patriarchal homes. If any man 
can candidly make the comparison, and then de- 
nounce polygamy as a sin, the very means which Di- 
vine Providence has chosen to save these women 
IS* 



210 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

from that state of wretchedness and degradation, 1 
can only say that I am at a loss whether I should be 
most astonished at the waywardness of his heart, or 
the blindness of his understanding. 

But the most astounding thing of all, is, that the 
Divine institution of polygamy, as restored and 
practised by our little flock of saints here in the wil- 
derness, should be denounced with expressions of 
holy horror by a people who are actually compelling 
four millions of human beings to live in a state of 
universal concubinacre. He that causeth another to 
commit adultery, is guilty of adultery ; he that com- 
pels another to live in concubinage, is guilty of con- 
cubinage; and he that approves of a system which 
keeps four millions of his fellow men in such a de- 
graded and brutish condition, is guilty of concubin- 
age four millions of times over. Let all such for- 
ever shut their mouths in regard to the " sin" of 
polygamy. 

In conclusion, I think it is sufficiently demon- 
strated that the system of polygamy, as maintained 
by the Latter Day Saints, is fully authoriz.ed by both 
the Old and the New Testaments. 

So far the Elder's discourse. I flatter myself ttat 
I should not find it difficult, from my stand-point, 
to expose its sophistries and refute its arguments. 
But how Bishop Hopkins could accomplish it, in 
consistency with his own Bible arguments, I am not 
able to understand. Indeed, the leading points in 
the Elder's discourse seem to have been borrowed 
directly from the Vermont Bishop and the Pennsyl- 
vania Judge. And if the learned Judge should 
attempt to evade the analogy by saying that polyga- 



SLAVERY AND ETHICS. 211 

my is a sin, becaiiso, unlike elavcry, it is prohibited 
by the law of the land; I answer that an unconsti- 
tutional law is, with us, no law at all ; and clearly 
Concrress has no more a constitutional riti^ht to mcd- 
die with the institution of polygamy than with that 
of slavery; the former is quite as domestic an institu- 
tion as the latter; and if Congress may constitu- 
tionally prohibit polygamy in a territory, Congress 
may prohibit slavery in a territory. Beyond all 
cavil this would bo true, at least as soon as any one 
of the United States should legalize polygamy. One 
State having legalized polygamy, it follows, accord- 
ing to the current Democratic theory, framed for the 
party by their slaveholding masters and dictators, 
that polygamy would be inevitably legalized in all 
the territories of the United States, and Congress 
would have no constitutional authority to prohibit 
it ; for if one man could go into a territory with his 
family, another man would have an equal right to 
go with his family. And if it be further insisted 
that, Avithout any law of Congress, polygamy is for- 
bidden by the common law ; — so also is shivery; for 
the decision of Lord Mansfield is based upon the 
common law, is a part of the common law, and was 
antecedent to the American devolution. Shivery 
and polygamy are twins. The two " Divine institu- 
tions" must stand or fall together. 



CHAPTER Yll. 

SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE; — SUPE- 
RIOR AND INFERIOR RACES. 

IT IS well known that, among the slaveholding 
States, there are two classes, the breeding States 
and the buying States; there are also two sorts of 
slave trade, the domestic slave trade and the foreign 
slave trade. The breeding States naturally find it for 
their interest that the price of slaves should be kept 
as high as possible ; and consequently they are op- 
posed to foreign competition, i. e., to the African 
slave trade ; and are in favor of the widest extension 
of the system of slavery, as tending to enlarge their 
market. The buying and planting States, on the 
other hand, while equally in favour of slavery exten- 
sion, because the enormous profits and the increased 
political power come directly into their own hands, 
are naturally desirous of procuring the additional 
slaves at as cheap a rate as possible ; and therefore 
have begun to insist upon the re-opening of the Afri- 
can trade. Meantime the domestic trade is fostered 
by both parties, and, to the opprobrium of American 
civilization, has been continued to this day, with 
circumstances of outrage and heart-rending atrocity, 
which must be witnessed in order to be understood. 
" The story of human beings, reared amid the 
softening influences of civilization, who, so soon as 

(212) 



SLAVKIIY AND THE BLAVE TRADE. 218 

they arrive at the maturity of their physical power, 
are, like so many cattle, shij^ped off to a distant re- 
gion of tropical heat, there to be worked to death — 
of husbands separated from their wives, children 
from their parents, brothers and sisters from each 
other — of exposure on the auction block, and trans- 
fer to new masters and strange climates — all this 
happening not to heathen savages, but to men and 
w^omen capable of friendship and affection, and sen- 
sible to moral suffering, — this story, I say, is familiar 
to us all."* 

" I affirm that there exists in the United States a 
slave trade, not less odious or demoralizing, nay, I 
do in my conscience believe, more odious and more 
demoralizincc than that which is carried on between 
Africa and Brazil. Korth Carolina and Virginia are 
to Louisiana and Alabama what Congo is to Eio 

Janeiro God forbid that I should extenuate 

the horrors of the slave trade in any form ! But I 
do think this is its w^orst form. Bad enough it is 
that civilized men should sail to an uncivilized quar- 
ter of the world where slavery exists, should there 
buy wretched barbarians, and should carry them 
away to labour in a distant land : bad enough ! But 
that a civilized man, a baptized man, a man 2)roud 
of being a citizen of a free State, a man frequenting 
a Christian church, should breed slaves for exporta- 
tion,! and, if the whole horrible truth must bo told, 

* Cairncs on the Slave Power, p. 72. 

f " The citizens of Virginia indignantly deny that thoy breed 
and rear slaves for the purpose of selling them. Not only do 
those who interpose this denial do so, in the vast majority of « 
cases, with a consciousness of truth, but, perhaps, in no single 
instance can it be truly affirmed, tliat any individual slave is 



214 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

should even beget slaves for exportation, should see 
children, sometimes his own children, gambolling 
around him from infancy, should watch their growth, 
should become familiar with their faces, and should 
then sell them for four or five hundred dollars a head, 
and send them to lead in a remote country a life 
which is a lingering death, a life about which the 
best thing that can be said is that it is sure to be 
short ; this does, I own, excite a horror exceeding 
even the horror excited by that slave trade which is 
the curse of the African coast. And mark : I am not 
speaking of any rare case, of any instance of eccen- 
tric depravity. I am speaking of a trade as regular 
as the trade in pigs between Dublin and Liverpool, 

raised for the purpose of being sold. The determination to rear 
slaves is formed and executed this year, while the act of selling 
may not take place until twenty years hence. The two things 
are probably never resolved and consummated as parts of one 
plan. The fallacy of the denial interposed by the people of Vir- 
ginia consists in this, that, although no one slave may be raised 
with a special view to his sale, yet the entire business of raising 
slaves is carried on with reference to the price of slaves, and 
solely in consequence of the price of slaves ; and this price de- 
pends, as they well know, solely upon the domestic slave trade. 
Of the men who deny for themselves individually the fact of 
raising slaves for the purpose of selling them, too many make no 
scruple in insisting upon markets to keep up the price of slaves. 
The well-known lamentation of a successful candidate for the 
governorship of Virginia, uttered without rebuke before a Vir- 
ginia audience, that the closing of the mines of California to 
slave labour had prevented the price of an able-bodied negro 
man from rising to five thousand dollars, is only a single exam- 
ple of the freedom and publicity with which the domestic slave 
trade is advocated in that State." (Weston's Progress of Slavery, 
pp. 147-8.) 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 215 

or as the trade in coal between tte Tyne and tlio 
Thames."* 

Take the following from an eye-witness; — for the 
general fact is, after all, best apprehended from a 
particular case : 

" But the bell rings, and the slaves are ordered on 
board the cars. They break away from their wives 
and husbands at the sound of the whip, and start for 
tho_' nigger' car. One of them, whose name was 
Friday, bounded back and gave his wife the last kiss 
of affection. Then the husband was pushed on board 
and the wife was left ! Friday's wife had a present 
tied up in an old cotton handkerchief, which she de- 
signed to give her husband as her last token of love 
for him. But in the more than mortal agony of part- 
ing, she had forgotten the present until the cars 
started, when she ran, screaming, as she tossed the 
bundle towards the car, ' O here Friday ! I meant to 
give you this!' But instead of reaching iihe car, it 
fell to the ground through the space between the 
cars, and such a shriek as that woman gave, when she 
saw that solitary emblem of the fidelity of her early 
vow and constant affection for her devoted husband 
fail to reach him, 1 never heard uttered by human 
voice. It thrilled my soul, leaving impressions that 
will never be effaced till m}^ dying day. Her heart 
was breaking ! She could no longer suppress her 
grief; and for some distance after the cars started, 
the air was rent with her bitter lanientations, burst- 
ing forth with the most frantic wails ever uttered in 
despair. 

"There were thirty-five passengers in that car, 

* Lord Macaulay'a Speech on tlic 8iig!ir Duties. 



216 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

but no sympathy was expressed for the wretched 
victims of the billiard-table. Young ladies, daugh- 
ters of slaveholders, well educated, connected with 
refined families, were in that car, but they did not 
seem to pity the poor, despairing slaves. They 
laughed at them, and ridiculed their expressions of 
grief. ' Look out here !' said one of the young ladies 
at a window to a schoolmate opposite, 'just see those 
niggers ! What a rumpus they are making ! Just 
as if niggers cared anything about their babies ! See 
Cuffee kiss Dinah ! What a taking on ! Likely as 
not he will have another wife next week !' '"^ 

Now this is a part of the system of slavery " as it 
is maintained in the Southern States," and, of course, 
it is held by the " Christian Bishop" to be " fully au- 
thorized by both the Old and the ]S"ew Testaments." 
Nor does he leave us to infer this from his general 
statements, but, it will be remembered, he expressly 
defends this particular feature of the system by a 
formal argument. And, indeed, so long as slavery 
is maintained and perpetuated, this trade must go 
with it as part and parcel of the divine and provi- 
dential scheme ; and the real reasons why the African 
slave trade is rejected by any, who fully believe in 
the divine right of slaveholding, are not at all of a 
humane, moral, or religious nature, but of sheer 
sordid interest and " a wise" pecuniary " expediency." 
The " Christian Bishop" sides with these latter, and 
is opposed to the African slave trade ; but it would 
seem his opposition must be based solely upon the 
same motives of "a wise expediency;" — and this 
may serve to show how justly, as a moralist and a 

* C. G. Parsons' Inside View of Slavery. 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 217 

Christian, be deserves the credit which he seems to 
claim for opposing the ^' slave trade." I cannot 
think of a single argument which he has alleged in 
defence of slavery, that is not equally valid in de- 
fence of the "slave trade ;'^ — especially is this true 
of his grand climax, already cited : " If any man can 
contemplate the awful debasement of the native 
Africans, and candidly compare it with the present 
condition of the Southern slaves, and then denounce 
as a sin, the means which divine Providence has 
chosen to save them from their former state of 
wretched barbarism, .... I can only say, that I am 
at a loss whether I should be most astonished at the 
waywardness of his heart, or the blindness of his 
understanding." Of course this is, in terms, appli- 
cable directly in justification of the African slave 
trade. I shall set against it an authority which even 
the " Christian Bishop," and the politicians who 
called for his " Views," will consider quite respect- 
able. — I quote from the message of President Bu- 
chanan, of December, 1859 : 

" But we are obliged, as a Christian and moral na- 
tion, to consider what would be the effect upon un- 
happy Africa itself, if we should re-open the slave 
trade. This would give the trade an impulse and 
extension which it never had even in its palmiest 
days. The numerous victims required to supply it 
would convert the whole slave coast into a perfect 
pandemonium, for which this country would be held 
responsible in the eyes both of God and man. Its 
petty tribes would then be constantly engaged in 
predatory wars against each other, for the purpose 
of seizing slaves to supply the American market. 
All hope of African civilization would thus bo ended. 
10 



218 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

" On the other hand, when a market for African 
slaves shall be no longer furnished in Cuba, and thus 
all the world be closed against this trade, we may 
then indulge a reasonable hope for the gradual im- 
provement of Africa. The chief motive of war 
among the tribes will cease whenever there is no 
longer any demand for slaves. The resources of that 
fertile, but miserable country, might be developed 
by the hand of industry, and afford subjects for 
legitimate foreign and domestic commerce. In this 
manner Christianity and civilization may gradually 
penetrate the existing gloom." 

Even Caiaphas prophesied, " being high-priest that 
year." — And what becomes, now, of all the rhetoric 
spent upon the moral and religious blessings and 
benefits accruing to mankind from Negro slavery 
and the African slave trade ? What, now, of these 
noble gospel and missionary institutions? Look at 
the great African balance-sheet ! 

There are two leading arguments, familiarly urged 
in defence of Negro slavery, which are equally appli- 
cable in justification of the slave trade : — either that 
" the Negro is not a man," or that " the Negroes are 
an inferior race." The former of these the " Chris- 
tian Bishop" professedly rejects; the latter he fully 
adopts. One or other of these arguments is so con- 
stantly insisted on as settling the whole question, 
that they demand some sj^ecial consideration. 

"Negroes are not men;" — this is an old idea; — 
" slaves are not men," said a Roman lady, (see Ju- 
venal.) Dr. Nott, of Mobile, and Mr. Gliddon, of 
IMiiladclphia, published, some years since, an elabo- 
rate work, the chief burden of which was to show 
that the Negro and the white man are not descended 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE T R A P E . 21 9 

from a common origin. IIow far this Gliddonian 
infidelity lias extended at the Soutli it would be curi- 
ous to inquire; tluit it has infected to a considerable 
extent the Southern mind there can he no doubt. 
Says one Southern writer : 

" The wide-spread delusion that Southern institu- 
tions are an evil, and their extension danofcrous, — 
the notion so prevalent at the North that there is a 
real antagonism, or that the system of the South is 
hostile to jSTorthcrn interests; the weakened Union 
sentiment, and the utter debauchment, the absolute 
traitorism of a portion of the Northern people, not 
only to the Union, but to Democratic institutions and 
to the cause of civilization on this continent; all 
these, with the minor and most innumerable mis- 
chiefs that this mighty world-wide imposture has 
engendered or drags in its midst, rest upon the 
dogma, the single assumption, the sole elementary 
foundation falsehood, that a Negro is a black man.'' 

But, " at all events," say the slaveholders, " the 
Negroes are an inferior race ; and may, therefore, 
justly be kept in slavery;" — and to this the " Chris- 
tian Bishop" says. Amen. 

" Is it not certain that through his faults, still more 
than through his figure, the Negro is an inferior 
being? He is indolent, inactive, drunken, cruel, in- 
capable of labour, or virtue without compulsion. Ho 
is truly formed for his inferior condition; tlio litllo 
education of which he is susceptible he owes to ser- 
vitude." — This is the common argument. And, says 
Governor Aflams, of Soutli Carolina, in his message, 
in 185G, "until Providence decides otherwise, tho 
African must continue to be a liewer of wood and a 
drawer of water There was a lime when 



220 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

a canting philosophy almost inclined our minds to 
believe that slavery was unjust. Investigations have 
wholly changed the common opinion on this point. 
The South now believes that a mysterious Provi- 
dence has mingled the two races together on this 
continent with some wise view, and that their mu- 
tual relations have been profitable to both. Slavery 
has elevated the African to a degree of civilization 
which the black race has never attained in any age 
or in any country." 

It is remarkable that this assumption of inferiority 
of race should have led to the refusal of almost all 
means and opportunities of intellectual improve- 
ment to the slaves. This, taken in connection with 
the assumed natural inferiority marked by attendant 
striking physical characteristics, makes the lot and 
the prospects of the enslaved Negro sad beyond 
description. 

" ' The only means by which the ancients main- 
tained slavery, were fetters and death; the Ameri- 
cans of the South of the Union have discovered more 
intellectual securities for the duration of their power. 
They have employed their despotism and their vio- 
lence against the human mind. In antiquity, pre- 
cautions were taken to prevent the slave from break- 
ino- his chains; at the f>resent day, measures are 
adopted to deprive him even of the desire of free- 
dom. The ancients kept the bodies of their slaves 
in bondage, but they placed no restraint upon the 
mind, and no check upon education ; and they acted 
consistently with their established principle, since a 
natural termination of slavery then existed, and one 
day or other the slave might be set free, and become 
the equal of his master. But the Americans of the 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 221 

South, T^'ho do not admit that the Negroes can ever 
be commingled with themselves, have forbidden 
them to be taught to read and write under severe 
penalties; and as they will not raise them to their 
own level, they sink them as nearly possible to that 
of the brutes/ (De Tocqueville — Democracy in Ame- 
rica, Vol. II., pp. 246, 247.) The education of slaves 
amongst the ancients prepared the way for emanci- 
pation. The prohibition of the education of slaves 
amongst the moderns has naturally suggested the 
policy of holding them in perpetual bondage ; and 
laws and manners have conspired to interpose obsta- 
cles all but insuperable in the way of manumission. 
Thus the modern slave is cut oif from the one great 
alleviation of his lot — the hope of freedom."* 

''The education of slaves was never prohibited in 
ancient Boman world, and, in point of fact, no 
small number of them enjoyed the advantage of a 
simple cultivation. ' The youths of promising genius,' 
saj's Gibbon, ' were instructed in the arts and 
sciences, and almost every profession, liberal and 
mechanical, might be found in the household of an 
opulent Senator.' The industrial necessities of llo- 
man society, (and the same was true of society in 
the middle ages,) in this way, provided for the edu- 
cation of at least a large proportion of the slave 
population ; and education, accompanied as it was 
by a general elevation of their condition, led, by a 
natural and almost inevitable tendency, to emanci- 
pation."f 

" The slave, amongst the ancients, belonged to the 
same race as his master, and he was often the supe- 

* Cairncs, pp. 70, 71. t Cairncs, p. C8. 

19* 



222 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

rior of the two in education and instruction. Free- 
dom was the only distinction between them ; and 
when freedom was conferred, they Avere easily con- 
founded together." " The greatest diffi- 
culty of antiquity [in the way of abolition] was that 
of altering the law; amongst the moderns, it is that 
of altering the manners; and, as far as we are con- 
cerned, the real obstacles begin where those of the 
ancients left off. This arises from the circumstance 
that, amongst the moderns, the abstract and transient 
fact of slavery is fatally united to the physical 
and permanent fact of colour. The tradition of 
slavery dishonours the race, and the peculiarity of 
the race perj^etuates the tradition of slavery. IS'o 
African has ever voluntarily emigrated to the shores 
of the l!^ew World; whence it must be inferred, that 
all the blacks who are now to be found in that hemi- 
sphere are either slaves or freedmen. Thus the Negro 
transmits the external mark of his ignominy to all 
his descendants. The law may cancel servitude: 
God alone can obliterate its brand."* 

Says M. Granier de Cassagnac, in his Voyage aux 
Antilles (pp. 137-9) : 

" The slaves sold by the African kings are their 
superfluous slaves, who have laboured for them and 
been born among them ; there are here and there a 
few prisoners of war, but these are rare exceptions. 
.... The slave trade, that pretended commerce in 
human flesh, becomes reduced, in the eyes of men 
of good sense, to a simjyle translocation of workmen, of 
incontestable advantage to the latter. Servitude does 
not constitute a condition of violence to those sub- 

* De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. II., pp. 215-17. 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 223 

jocted to it; it is a method of organization of labour 
which guarantees the maintenance of the labourer 
during his natural life, in consideration of the sum 
of efforts of which he is capable. . . . The establish- 
ment of liberty in Europe has destro3^cd the ancient 
economical organization which resolved the problem 
of the material assistance of men by obligatory 
labour, but has not yet found a new and equivalent 
solution ; for at the present time the free labourers 
consume more than they produce, which is proved by 
the fact that they receive from society, in addition, 
alms, vagrant institutions, foundling asylums, and 
hospitals. . . . [' The free labourers consume more 
than they produce !' ^yho produces the balance ?] 

" l^othing less than the impenetrable crust of ab- 
surdity^ which envelopes the brain of European 
philanthropists, could prevent them from discerning 
these truths ! !"* 

" But are not the IS'egroes, after all, really an infe- 

* After such a defining of bis position, the testimony of !\r. 
Gi'anier de Cassagnac to another point may be received without 
disparagement. "The whites," writes he, "have failed in tlieir 
duties of morality and continency as Christians, I admit; but it 
is unjust to make their fault greater than it is; and if God par- 
dons them, the Negresses will not be the ones to hold malice 
against them. They consider themselves very naturally as the 
wives of those who feed and lodge them ; and when we see the 
kind of spouses to which they are accustomed in their own coun- 
try disembark from the slave-ships, we need not carry fatuity very 
far to believe that the latter can be replaced with them without 
striking disadvantage. This is, besides, their most sincere and 
scarcely disguised opinion, and if philanthropists believe them 
very unhappy in finding themselves exposed to the ardor of their 
new masters, a short voyage to the Antilles will radically con- 
vince them to the contrary." (Voyage aux Antilles, pp. 237, 210.) 



224 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Tior race?'' Suppose they are, does it follow that 
they should be reduced to slavery ? How inferior 
must a race be in order to authorize their being en- 
slaved? And, when you have settled your rule, who 
is to judge of its application ? There may be other 
Inferior races besides the negroes * It may be a 

* The " Christian Bishop" seems much exercised by the treat- 
ment which the Indians received from the Puritans of New Eng- 
land and the Quakers of Pennsylvania. But, in his view, the 
great misfortune, in the case of the aborigines, was, that we 
failed to reduce them to slavery, (p. 237.) Had they been en- 
slaved like the blacks, he thinks the red race might have been 
preserved and gradually civilized. Slavery is his panacea. In 
proof of his position, he has forgotten to refer, as he should have 
done, to the crucial experiments in Hispaniola, Cuba, and Mexico, 
where, in the two former cases, with slavery, the poor Indians 
were swiftly and utterly exterminated; and, in the latter case, 
without slavery, the aborigines still remain, by the million, either 
in pure or mixed breeds, and, with Christian churches and priests, 
in a state of at least semi-civilization. 

When the "Christian Bishop" has expended as much of his 
sarcastic indignation as he thinks fit upon the Puritans and the 
Quakers, and as much of his tearful sympathy as he can spare 
upon their Indian victims, let him turn next to the more modern 
instances of the Creeks and Choctaws threatened with a sweetly 
Christian extermination by the tender mercies of the Southern 
chivalry, and saved only by the interposition of the United States' 
government, which was compelled to tear them from the homes 
and graves of their fathers, and ruthlessly thrust them back into 
the Western wilderness ; and of the Seminoles of Florida hunted 
down like wild beasts through thicket, swamp, and morass, and 
their bleeding remnant torn from their native haunts and driven 
to share the abodes allotted to the Cherokees, Choctaws, and 
Creeks. Let him recount — to the honour of his " dear brethren 
of the South"— the causes and the course of this Seminole war: 
that the Indians had attacked and burned no settlements, had 
committed no acts of violence or barbarity against the whites, 
but had simply aflForded an asylum to runaway negroes ; had, in 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 225 

question whether or not the Celtic race is inferior to 
the Anglo-Saxon. There may be white slavery, by 
this rule, as well as black slavery; and this is fully 
admitted by the " Christian Bishop ;" who even 
claims great credit to the Southern chivalry for their 
forbearance and self-denial in restricting the exercise 
of their divine right of enslaving, exclusively to the 
most degraded race of all. This Southern chivalry 
seriously claim to be a " superior race" to the free 
labourers of the North. They themselves are gen- 
obedience to an unrepealed divine command, refused to restore 
to their masters the slaves who had escaped to them for protec- 
tion ; — that, for this, and this only, they were assailed and pur- 
sued in an unrelenting war, and men, women, and children, 
either butchered or expatriated; that the United States' govern- 
ment employed its military force for several years in the work, 
expending some forty millions of dollars, losing mnny valuable 
lives of brave men, and bringing an eternal disgrace upon the 
American name by seizing the Indian chief Osceola in violation 
of a solemn promise to which the heroic savage had implicitly 
trusted. Let him tell us, whether, after all this national expen- 
diture of money, men, and honour, in such a cause, we of the 
North have nothing to do with Southern slavery, and are in no 
sense responsible for its maintenance and continuance. 

It is high time that all the abettors of Southern slavery, and 
admirers of Southern chivalry, and maligners of New England, 
whether born in Ireland or in South Carolina, should study the 
history of the modern Seminole war, instead of expending their 
righteous indignation upon the ''Tilgrim Fathers" and the Qua- 
kers, or exhausting their Christian sympathies upon the poor 
Indians of the distant past. Besides, it would not be amiss for 
them to inquire, whether it has been tlicir "dear brethren of tlie 
Southern church" or the descendants of the stigmatized Puritans 
and Quakers, who have made the most earnest and successful 
efforts to civilize and Christianize the Indian aborigines, and 
particularly those surviving and expatriated tribes of Choctaws, 
and Creeks, and Seminolcs. 



22G SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

tlemen, tlic others are the " mndsills of society." 
The descendants of adventurers and convicts a " su- 
perior race" to the descendants of the companions 
and co-religionists of Penn, and the sons of the Pil- 
grim fathers ! And having a perfect divine and na- 
tural right to make slaves of their inferior I^orthern 
neighbours, — if they could!! But, most amazing 
and incredible of all, there are found among North- 
ern men those who are mean and base enough to 
admit this outrageous assumption of Southern inso- 
lence ! ! ! 

1 have myself been told to my face, by an eminent 
Judge and a distinguished Democratic politician of a 
Northern State, upon my suggesting that the South 
had no encroachments to complain of, that they had 
themselves governed the country ever since the or- 
ganization of the Union, — " yes, they have governed 
the country, and see how well they have governed 
it ! And don't you know,^^ he added, ^' that intelli- 
gence and virtue will always govern V Could de- 
grading sycophancy be carried further ? Think of 
that, freemen of the North. Think of a man coming 
and asking for your suifrages, with such an opinion 
as that of your virtue and intelligence — of the virtue 
and intelligence of his neighbours. Are you fit only 
to be governed by him and his Southern friends ? 
" The relations between the North and the South," 
says a Southern organ, " are very analogous to those 
which subsisted between Greece and the Eoman Em- 
pire after the subjugation of Aehaia by the consul 
Mummius. The dignity and energy of the Eoman 
character, conspicuous in war and politics, were not 
easily toned and adjusted to the arts of industry and 
literature. The degenerate and pliant Greeks, on 



SLAVERY AND THE ri L A V E T 11 A D E . 2'17 

the contrary, excelled in the Landicraft and polite 
profL\ssions. We learn from the vigorous invective 
of Juvenal,, that they were the most useful and capa- 
ble of servants, whether as pimps or professors of 
rhetoric. Obsequious, dexterous, and ready, the ver- 
satile Greeks monopolized the business of teaching, 
publishing, and manufacturing in the Eoman Em- 
pire, allowing their masters ample leisure for the 
service of the State, in the senate or in the field." 
'' In confirmation of this historical theory," says 
Goldwin Smith, " it may be remarked that the Eomans 
of the Southern States, like those of the capitol, 
sprang from an asylum. One who was much con- 
cerned in the foundation of Virginia, said of that 
colony that ' the number of felons and vagabonds 
transported did bring such evil characters on the 
place, that some did choose to be hanged ere they 
would go there, and loere.' " 

And as to the inferiority of the African race, how 
far it is the result of their condition rather than of 
nature, the result of immemorial generations of de- 
basement and slavery,* it is impossible to say. That 
some of the descendants of Ham and even of Canaan, 
betra^^ed no remarkable intellectual, military, or po- 

* Or even of fear : — 

"Fear," says Bcntbam, "leads the labourer to Lido his 
powei's, rather than to show them; to remain below, ratlier than 
to surpass himself." .... "By displayiut:; superior c:ii>aeity, 
the slave would only raise the mcaj^ure of his ordinary duties; 
by a work of supererogation, he would only prepare punishment 
for himself! lie therefore seeks, 1)y coneealinu; liis powers, to 
reduce to tlic lowest the standard of requisition. His ambition 
is (ho reverse of that of the freeman : he seeks to descend in the 
scale of industry, rather than to ascend." 



228 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

litical inferiority, let ^N^^irod, let the Assyrian and 
Babylonian Empires, let Egypt, with her monu- 
ments and untold ages of learning and power, let 
Tyre and Sidon, with Phenician commerce and let- 
ters, let Carthage and Hannibal, bear witness. 
And even of the modern ISTegro races : 
" "VYe know now," says Cochin, "that divided into 
numerous tribes, some a prey to abominable tyrants, 
and to the horrors of a fetichism in which the ser- 
j)ent recalls the ancient symbol of the. demon, and 
in which human sacrifices are a figure of the instinc- 
tive confidence of humanity in an atoning blood; 
others subjected to the yoke by the invasion of Mus- 
sulman hordes; all the black nations resemble each 
other in great kindness and gentleness, remarkable 
bodily vigour, a sobriety equal to that of the Indian, 
and enough love of labor and commercial intelli- 
gence to have cultivated vast regions, and founded 
towns of twenty or thirty thousand souls. AYe know, 
too, the sale of slaves to Europeans is the chief origin 
and example of the pillages and atrocities which 
weigh down the blacks of Africa. We know, lastly, 
that, despite the debasement of long centuries of 
darkness, blood, superstition, and oppression, several 
tribes are handsome, intelligent, and worthy of the 
most elevated types of the human family." 

Speke and Livingstone show us the African, not 
as he is known on the outskirts of his own country, 
corrupted and brutalized by his commerce with the 
slave traders, " but he is put before us," as an Eng- 
lish writer forcibly remarks, " in his true colours, 
with all the elements of good and evil that belong 
to his native, unsophisticated character. Barbarous 
ho may be, and liable to gusts of passion that some- 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 220 

times carry him to deeds of savage violence. Ignor- 
ant he may be, and the shave of gross idohatry ; but 
he is not insensible to kindness; he is not unwilling 
to be taught and raised to something that belongs to 
a fiir higher order of humanity. And take him as 
Ivo is — untaught, ignorant of the arts of life, and the 
sport of savage passion — yet has he learned to bo 
faithful to his leader, to be true to his word, and 
honest in his dealings; and he has learnt so much of 
social union, that he is loyal to his chief, and proud 
of his tribe and name ; and he has many of those 
points of character, which, among civilized men, are 
called honour and patriotism. Nor is he a mere 
fierce and wandering hunter, like the red Indian of 
North America. For though he does love to follow 
the ' large game,' and to bring back their spoils for 
commerce, he also delights in agriculture, and dwells 
contentedly among his gardens and fields of corn ; 
longs to possess new implements and arts of culture, 
that he may turn them to profit; delights to im- 
prove his stock of domestic animals, to exchange 
produce with neighboring tribes, and thus to learn 
tiie arts of peace; he longs, also, for the improved 
arts and commerce of the white man, whose fame 
has reached him, but whose persons he has never 
seen." 

We may add, that, from the experiment in Liberia, 
we now know, also, that Negroes are capable of 
governing themselves, of managing their own politi- 
cal affairs, of developing no mean degree of intelli- 
ircncc and iearnino;, of home industry, of commercial 
enterprise, and even of statesmanship. And I liavo 
myself seen a class of Negro boys pass an examina- 
tion in mental arithmetic, in algebra, in geometry 



230 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

and trigonometry; in Cicero and Sallust; in the 
Greek and Latin poets ; in all the mysteries of metro 
and prosod}^, — an examination conducted exclusively 
by coloured teachers, — as critical and thorough and 
satisfactory as I ever witnessed in any High School 
or College in the land.* 

As I looked upon this class of blacks, the reflec- 
tion was not, what an inferior race ! but rather the 
reflection, the sad reflection, was, what are these 
youths to do with this learning ? Where are they 
to find an arena for the exercise of these unfolded 
powers, for the use and enjoyment of this refined 
culture ? I thought of the infamous, but, alas, too 
pertinent, queries of Chancellor Harper, of South 
Carolina : " Would you do a benefit to the horse or the 
ox by giving him a cultivated understanding or fine 
feelings ? So far as the mere labourer has the pride, 
the knowledge, the aspirations of a freeman, he is 
unfitted for his situation, and must doubly feel its 
inferiority. If there are sordid, servile, and labori- 
ous offices to be performed, is it not better that 
there should be sordid, servile, and labourious beings 
to perform them ?" 

It is to be observed that, in this doctrine, the philo- 
sophic Chancellor goes beyond the ''inferior" Ne- 
gro race, and would have all the labouring class re- 
tained in rudeness, ignorance and slavery. And, in 
his zeal to check the natural desire for liberty, 

**'At the last annual 'Academmia Poliglotta,' of tlie stu- 
dents of the Propaganda, the youths who carried off the palm 
were two Negroes, rejoicing in the names of William Sambo 
and John Provost. Their delivery and action were wonderful, 
and called forth thunders of applause."— Zonrfon Record. 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 231 

equality, and the elevation of one's condition, and to 
make all content with the allotments of Providence, 
the ['■ Christian Bishop" goes very far towards re- 
commending the same result. 

But a high moral motive is suggested in defence 
of Xegro slavery : it is the education of an inferior race. 
This motive calmed the scruples of Louis XIII., and 
the remorse of Louis XIY. ; it Avas on the lips of 
the adversaries of AYilbcrforce and Clarkson, and, 
three centuries before, in the speeches of the an- 
tagonists of Las Casas ;* it was the sole argument 
of the colonists of Guadaloupe and Jamaica ; it is the 
habitual answer of the tender-hearted ladies of Ha- 
vana; it is the pretext in the sermons of the preachers 
of South Carolina ; the thesis amplified b}" the wri- 
ters of Baltimore ; the summary excuse of the plan- 
ters of ISTew Orleans. 

They do not fail to add, that slavery is a means 
of converting a heathen race to Christianity. The 
slaves, therefore, are scholars and catechumens, the 
masters are instructors and i^reachers, the planta- 

* "It is known that Charles V. presided, in 1513, at Barcelona, 
over a solemn conference, to listen to Quevedo, Bishop of Darien, 
and Barthelemy de Las Casas, the illustrious and indefatigable 
protector of the Indians, in the presence of the Admiral of the 
Indies, Don Diego Columbus. The Bishop of Darien declared 
that all the inhabitants of the New World whom he had observed, 
appeared to him a species of men designed for servitude, through 
the inferiority of their intellect and natural talents, and that it 
would be impossible to instruct them, or cause them to make any 
progress towards civilization unless held under the continued au- 
thority of a master. Las Casas rose with indignation at the idea 
that there was any race of men born for servitude, and attacked 
this opinion as irreligious, inhuman, and false ia practice." — 
Robertson's America, Book III. 



232 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

tions are boarding-schools and little seminaries, 
slavery is a method of education and conversion. 

After three centuries of this system, freedom is 
talked of " Take care !" exclaim the masters, with 
one voice ; '• you are about to thrust ignorant and 
depraved beings into society !" What ! the educa- 
tion and conversion of your scholars is not finished? 
Either the pupils are incorrigible, or the method is 
bad ; it is time to change it, and renounce this piti- 
ful argument. The fears of the masters give the lie 
to their promises : By the grace of God, servitude 
is decidedly not a means of civilizing or converting 
any member of the human family.* 

On the whole, if slavery is right, — not tolerated for 
a time and under certain circumstances, — hut justified 
as a moral state of human society, authorized and 
approved by the word of God : — then is the slavery 
of whites no less justifiable than the slavery of 
blacks, — it is a mere question of relative force and 
of fact; if I ca?i make you my slave, I have a right 
so to do ; if you are my slave, you ovglit to be my 
slave. Only I am bound to feed and clothe you well, 
and not to overtask or abuse you. It may be my 
duty, too, so far as it is for my interest, to give you 
religious instruction.-]- But for the rest, you are a 

* See Cocliin, Results of Emancipation, p. 301. 

f Tlie admissions of Queipo upon this point are extremely 
valuable.- He thinks that for the slaves, it suffices for the pre- 
sent to limit the education to religious instruction. He urges 
the government to facilitate, by every means within its power, 
instruction so useful; and mark what was the programme of 
this in his eyes ! 

"Religious instruction, directed by zealous and learned eccle- 
Biastics, far from influencing the relaxation of discipline, as some 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 233 

" 7nere labourer," a slave ; you arc to serve me and bo 
content. Moreover tlie slave trade must be right 
also ; and those men must have been guilty, in their 
day, of making themselves "wiser than the Almighty, 
and more merciful than Jesus Christ,'' who laboured, 
on moral and religious grounds, for the abolition of 
that infamous traffic ; for, as long as it was estab- 
lished and protected by law, it was fully sanctioned 
and " authorized by both the Old and the New Tes- 
taments." If I may hold slaves, I may buy slaves; 
or, at least, if I ma}' buy them of my next neighbour, I 
certainly may buy them in a market three thousand 
miles off. The " hoi-rors of the middle passage" have 
no more to do with condemning the slave trade, as 
wrong, 'pcr se, than the undeniable instances of out- 
rageous cruelty in the treatment of slaves have to 
do with the condemnation of the system of slave- 
holding, ^^r se; for they may be incidental in one 
case as well as in the other; and, moreover, may be 
due to the officious intermeddling of abolitionists quite as 
much in the former case as in the latter. 

If, then, we say that slavery, as it exists, is author- 
ized and justified by the law and word of God and by 
the Gospel of Christ, and if the slave trade also is thus 
authorized and justified (which follows of course") ; 
and if it is deemed by slaveholders to be profitable 
and desirable to hold slaves and buy slaves and per- 
petuate slavery; what boots it for us to add that we 

perhaps foar, would contribute, on the contrary, to strenptlien 
the aiithority of the masters, by accustoming the slaves to suhmission, 
find teaching them to endure the privations of their transient condi- 
tion with the resignation whicli religion altmo can inspire." — 
Cochin's ilesults of Slavery, p. 171. 
20* 



234 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

desire the abolition of slavery or of tlie slave trade ? 
Why abolish it at another time rather than now? 
And why desire its abolition at all ? What prepara- 
tions, with such views, will be made for its ultimate 
abolition ? And why sliould any such preparations be 
made? It is a mere question of loss and gain, of 
"wise expediency," of joolitical economy; it has no 
moral character, no relation to religious duty. Why 
should I meddle with my neighbour's business con- 
cerns ? Why should I desire that he should plant cot- 
ton rather than flax, or raise oats rather than barley, 
or import lead rather than iron, or cutlery rather 
than sugar? Surely, if I desired anything in these 
cases, it would not be especially as a Christian that I 
should desire it ; it would not be a desire particularly 
appropriate and honourable to a "Christian Bishop," 
but must proceed merely from some selfish or personal 
or trivial consideration. 

If the " Christian Bishop's" argument proves, — as 
I think I have shown it does, — that white slavery and 
the slave trade are fully authorized, in this nineteenth 
century, by the word of God; — ^then his argument 
proves too much, and must be a fallacy. And, after 
such an argument, it is to no purpose at all that he 
adds, as a salvo for his own goodness of heart, the 
idle, and withal inconsistent wish that slavery and the 
slave trade might be done away. 

Meantime the argument is not idle ; it has its practi- 
cal application. For, I shall proceed to show that, 
notwithstandino; all the interests of their slave-breed- 
ing allies, and all the sentimental wishes of their 
Northern friends, and all the " indignant reproba- 
tion," too, of the Christian world, — the buying and 
planting slaveholders, being a large majority of their 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 235 

craft, mid the enterprising progressives witluil, were 
fully bent upon the reopening of the African slave 
trade, at the earliest possible moment. Indeed, many 
cargoes of Africans had already been introduced and 
sold in South Carolina and Georgia; and it is remark- 
able that though the slave trade had been declared 
piracy by the laws of the United States, yet, up to 
the close of Mr. Buchanan's administration, I believe, 
not a man had been convicted under those laws, or 
suffered their punishment; and that "public function- 
ary" himself^ notwithstanding the very edifying ho- 
mily against the slave trade introduced into one of his 
annual messages, would not have ventured to lift a 
finger to catch a slave-trader, had his Southern mas- 
ters given him an intimation to mind his own busi- 
ness. It was not till after the commencement of Lin- 
coln's administration that Gordon, in New York, was 
convicted of being concerned in the slave trade. And 
one of the most irritating features of the whole busi- 
ness, is, that when this infiimous and lawless traffic 
is charged upon the South, they answer that, on the 
contrary, it is carried on by Northern men ; that tho 
slave ships are furnished by Northern capitalists, 
fitted out in the Northern ports, manned by Northern 
seamen, and the profits go into Northern pockets; — 
that is to say, while the slaveholders encaurage, cm- 
ploy and protect these pirates in their nefarious busi- 
ness, protect them against all the efforts of Northern 
men to bring them to punishment, tliey turn round 
and charge upon "the North" the infamy of tho 
whole transaction. And this is of a ])iece witli tho 
shrewd ])roceeding of the "Gln-istiaii I)isli()|)" in 
charging upon the city of New Yorlc, upon th(> freo 
and loyal people of New York, all On' crinus niid vil- 



286 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

lainies perpetrated there by his own pro-slavery and 
negro-hating friends. 

Some of the evidence that the cotton States had 
begun to move earnestly in agitation and action for 
the re-opening of the African slave trade, I add here, 
as collectod by Professor Cairnes, of Galway, in his 
able work on the Slave Power. 

" With a view to the first point — the augmentation 
of the supply of slave labour — the obvious, and the 
only adequate expedient, was the re-opening of the 
African slave trade It was, accordingly, deter- 
mined, that an agitation should forthwith be set on 
foot for this purpose. The first blast of the trumpet 
announcing the new jDolicy was sounded by Governor 
Adams, of South Carolina, in his address to the legis- 
lature of that State in 1857. The prohibition of the 
slave trade was denounced in vehement terms. It 
was a violation of the Constitution, and it interfered 
with the essential interests of the South. By the 
closing of the African slave trade the equilibrium 
between North and South had been destroyed, and 
this equilibrium could only be restored in one way — 
by the re-opening of that trade. Let this once be 
accomplished — let the South have free access to the 
only labour market which is suited to her wants — 
and she has no rival whom she need fear. The key- 
note having been struck, the burden of the strain 
was taken up by other speakers, and the usual ma- 
chinery of agitation was put in motion through the 
South. The Southern press freely discussed the 
scheme.* It was brought before the annual conven- 

* "The Charleston Standard, complaining that the position of 
the South had hitherto been too much one of defence and apology, 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 237 

tions for the consideration of Southern affairs, and 
received tlie energetic support of the leaders of tho 
extreme Southern party.* At one of these conven- 
tions hekl at Vicksburg, Mississippi, in May, 1850, a 

adds, 'to the end of clinnging our attitude in the contest, and of 
planting oar standard right in the very faces of our adversaries, 
we propose, as a leading principle of Southern policy, to re-open 
and legitimate the slave trade.' And it then proceeds, in a series 
of articles, to argue at length the rightfulness and expediency 
of this measure, expounding and elaborately enforcing the fol- 
lowing propositions, viz.: — 'That equality of States is necessary 
to equality of power in the Senate of the Union ; that equality 
of population is necessary to equality of ^ power in the House of 
Representatives ; that we cannot expand our labour into the ter- 
ritories without decreasing it in the States, and what is gained 
upon the frontier is lost at the centres of the institution; that 
pauper white labour will not come into competition with our 
slaves; and, if it did, that it would not increase the integrity 
and strength of slavery ; and that, therefore, to the equality of 
influence in the Federal Legislature, there is a necessity for tho 
slave trade.'" 

* "Mr. Yancey has denied this in a letter to the Daily Xexos, 
and declared that he ' does not know two public men in the South, 
of any note, who ever' advocated the restoration of tho trade, 
and that 'the people there are and have been almost unanimously 
opposed to it.' It is unnecessary to re-open a question which has 
been disposed of, and I therefore refer the reader, who wishes to 
ascertain the authenticity of Mr. Yancey's statement, to the Daily 
Ncios of the 27th and 28th January, 18G2. One or two specimens, 
however, may be given of the views of Southern politicians ou 
this subject. The lion. L. W. Spratt, of Georgia, in a speech at 
Savannah in favour of the African slave trade, thus expressed 
himself: — ' The first reason for its revival is. it will give political 
power to the South. Imported slaves will increase our ropresen- 
tation in the National Legislature. More slaves will give us more 
States; and it is, therefore, within tlie jiower of the rude untu- 
tored savages we bring from Africa to restore to the South tho 
influence she has lost by tho suppression of the trade. Wo want 



238 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

vote in favour of the re-opening of the trade, was 
passed by a large majority ; and this was followed up 
by the formation of an 'African Labor Supply Asso- 
ciation,' of which Mr. De Bow, the editor of the lead- 
ing Southern review, was president. In Alabama a 
' League of United Southerners' issued a manifesto in 
which the Federal prohibition of the foreign slave 
trade is denounced as an unworthy concession to the 
demands of ]N"orthern fanaticism, and which insists on 
' the necessity of sustaining slavery, not only where 

only that kind of population which will extend and secure our 
political institutions, and there is no other source but Africa.' 
Mr. A. H. Stephens, the present Vice President of the Southern 
Confederation, has thus pointedly put the argument for the open- 
ing of the trade: — 'We can divide Texas into five slave states, 
and get Chihuahua, Sonora, &;c., if we have the slave population, 
and it is plain that unless the number of African stock be increased, 
we have not the population, and might as well abandon the race 
with our brethren of the North in the colonization of the territo- 
ries Slave States cannot be made without Africans. I am 

not telling you to do it, but it is a serious question concerning 
our political and domestic policy ; and it is useless to wage war 
about abstract rights, or to quarrel and accuse each other of un- 
soundness, unless we get more Africans Negro slavery is 

but in its infancy.' " 

And Mr. Jefferson Davis, while declaring his disapprobation 
of opening the trade in Mississippi, earnestly disclaimed ' any 
coincidence of opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity 
and sinfulness of the trade. The interest of Mississippi, not of 
the Africans,' he said, ' dictates my conclusion. Her arm is, no 
doubt, strengthened by the presence of a due proportion of the 
servile caste, but it might be paralyzed by such an influx as would 
probably follow if the gates of the African slave market were 
thrown open.' . . . . ' This conclusion, in relation to Mississippi, 
is based upon my view of her present condition, not upon anT/ general 
theory. It is not supposed to be applicable to Texas, to Neio Mexico^ 
or to any future acquisition to he made south of the Rio Grande.^ " 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 239 

its existence is jnit directly' in issue, but where it is 
remotely concerned.' In Arkansas and Louisiana tlio 
subject was brought before the State Legislatures. 
A motion brought forward in the Senate of the former 
State, condemnatory of the agitation for the revival 
of the African slave trade, was defeated by a majority 
of twenty-two. In the latter a bill embodying the 
views of the advocates of the trade was passed suc- 
cessfully through the lower House, and only by a nar- 
row majority lost in the Senate. In Georgia the 
executive committee of an agricultural society offered 
' a premium of twenty-five dollars for the best speci- 
men of a live African imported within the last twelve 
months, to be exhibited at the next meeting of the 
society.' 'Nor was the j)rinciple of competition con- 
fined to the show-yard. Southern notions would have 
been shocked if so solemn a work had missed the ben- 
ediction of the Church. Accordingly it was proposed 
in the True Southern, a Mississippi paper, to stimulate 
the zeal of the pulpit by founding a prize for the best 
sermon in favour of free trade in human flesh. Mean- 
while those who were immediately interested in the 
question had taken the law into their own hands, and 
the trade in slaves with Africa was actually com- 
menced on a large scale. Throughout the years 1859 
and 1860 fleets of slaves arrived at Southern ports, 
and with little interference from the Federal Govern- 
ment, succeeded in landing their cargoes. The traflic 
was carried on with scarcely an attempt at conceal- 
ment. Announcements of the arrival of cargoes of 
Africans, and advertisements of tlieir sak', a])])eared 
openly in the Southern papers; and depots of newly^ 
imported ' savages' were established in the princij^al 
towns of the South. ' I have had ampk^. evidences of 



240 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

the fact/ said Mr. Underwood, a gentleman of known 
respectability, in a letter to the New York Tribune, ' 
'that the re-opening of the African slave-trade is 
already a thing commenced, and the traffic is brisk 
and rapidly increasing. In fact, the most vital question 
of the day is not the opening of- the trade, hut its suppres- 
sion. The arrival of cargoes of negroes, fresh from 
Africa, in our Southern ports, is an event of frequent 
occurrence.' " (Cairnes, pp. 121-124.) 

'"Take off,' says Mr. Gaulden of Georgia, 'the 
ruthless restrictions which cut off the supply of slaves 
from foreign lands, . . . take off the restrictions 
ao-ainst the African slave trade, and we should then 
want no protection, and I would be willing to let you 
have as much squatter sovereignty as you wish. 
Give us an equal chance, and I tell you the institution 
of slavery will take care of itself " (Cairnes, p. 137.) 
E"or let it be supposed that Virginia, or all the 
slave-breeding States, would have breasted the rising 
Southern tide. 

" The sympathies which bind slaveholders together 
have always proved more powerful than the particular 
interests which would sunder them; and whatever 
course the necessities of slavery, as a system, have 
prescribed, that the whole array of slaveholders, with 
a disregard for private ends which, in a good cause, 
would be the highest virtue, has never hesitated to 
pursue." 

The advocates of slavery have long and pertina- 
ciously insisted that the philanthropic but fanatical 
efforts for the suppression of the slave trade have 
rather resulted in intensifying the horrors than dimin- 
ishing the amount of the traffic. This is of a piece 
with the ordinary reasoning of slaveholders and their 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TllADE. 241 

friends. They are always ready to take advantage of 
their own or of their clients' wrong. But the allega- 
tion is not true. " When we compare what took place 
a few years ago," said Lord John Eussell, June 8, 
1860, " when we remember that one hundred and forty 
thousand slaves were yearly carried away from Africa, 
while this year the number has not reached thirty 
thousand, we should neither deny the progress nor 
abandon the hope of a complete suppression of this 
traffic." 

And Livingstone wrote to Lord Clarendon, March 
19, 1856, from the Eiver Zambesi : "A certain Dr. 
Bryson has written that the measures taken to sup- 
press the slave trade have done nothing but increase 
its horrors. It has also been gravely affirmed that 
the Maravi now kill their captives, whereas formerly 
they kept them to sell to the whites. I can assure 
your Lordship that such an assertion could not come 
from a man mixed up, as I am, with slave-traders, 
in the very country where the traffic is carried on ; it 
is spread by those who have an interest in the slave 
trade. In the extensive portion of Africa with which 
I am acquainted wars are now very rare : they were evi- 
dently provoked by the slave trade. It is rare now to see a 
cafilah of slaves on its way to the sea-shore, and the 
traffickers know that they risk more than in ven- 
turing their money at play. By taking away all pos- 
sibility of industry, the commerce in slaves is the 
cause of the complete ruin of East and West Africa." 

But, while slaveholders and their allies, including 
some Christian Bishops, are ready to defend the slave 
trade, it is comforting to know that there is, at least, 
one portion of the church where a " Christian Bishop" 
would not be allowed to maintain the rightfulness of 
21 



242 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

this traffic. I close this chapter with the following 
extracts from the apostolic letter of Pope Gregory 
XYL, issued in 1839: 

" The law of the Gospel having very soon univer- 
sally and fundamentally ordained sincere charity to- 
wards all, and the Lord Jesus having declared that 
He would regard as done or refused to Himself all 
the acts of beneficence and mercy done or refused to 
the poor and little ones — it naturally followed that 
Christians not only regarded their slaves as brethren, 
above all when they were become Christians, but that 
they were more inclined to give liberty to those who 
rendered themselves worthy of it. This usually took 
place particularly on the solemn feasts of Easter, as 
St. Gregory of Kyssa relates. There were even found 
some who, inflamed with more ardent charity, em- 
braced slavery for the rede^nption of their brethren ; and 
an apostolic man, our predecessor. Pope Gregory I., 
of sacred memory, attests that he had known a great 
many who performed this work of mercy. "Where- 
fore the darkness of Pagan superstition being entirely 
dissipated in the progress of time, and the manners 
of the most barbarous nations being softened, — thanks 
to the benefit of faith working by charity, — things 
advanced so far, that for many centuries there have 
been no slaves among the greatest part of the Chris- 
tian nations. Yet (we say it with profound sorrow) 
men have been since found, even among Christians, 
who, shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, 
have not hesitated to reduce into slavery in distant 
countries, Indians, Negroes, and other unfortunate 
races ; or to assist in this scandalous crime, by insti- 
tuting and organizing a traffic in these unfortunate 
beings, who had been loaded with chains by others. 



SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE. 243 

"Wherefore, desiring to remove such a disgrace 
fi'oni all Christian countries, after having maturely 
considered the matter with many of our venerable 
brethren, the Cardinals of the Hol}^ Roman Church, 
assembled in Council, following the example of our 
2:)redecessors, by virtue of the apostolic ofhce, we warn 
and admonish in the Lord all Christians, of whatever 
condition they may be, and enjoin upon them that, 
for the future, no one shall venture unjustly to op- 
press the Indians, Negroes, or other men, whoever 
they may be ; to strip them of their property or re- 
duce them into servitude : or give aid or support to 
those who commit such excesses, or carry on that in- 
famous traffic, by which the blacks, as if they were 
not men, but mere impure animals, reduced like them 
into servitude, without any distinction, contrary to 
the laws of justice and humanity, are bought, sold, 
and devoted to endure the hardest labours ; and on 
account of which, dissensions are excited and almost 
continual wars are fomented among nations by tho 
allurements of gain offered to those who first carry 
away the ISTegroes. 

" Wherefore, by virtue of the apostolical authority, 
we condemn all these things aforesaid, as absolutely 
unworthy of the Christian name ; and, by the same 
authority, we absolutely prohibit and interdict all 
ecclesiastics and laymen from venturing to maiiitain 
that this traffic in blacks is permitted, under any pre- 
text or color whatever." 



CHAPTEE VIII. 

SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION — THE LABOUR- 
ING CLASSES. 

^^QINCB the world began," we have been told, 
O " slavery has never been abolished by external 
force and violence. It has only been done away by 
internal action on the part of those who are directly con- 
cerned. Of this we have two very different examples. 
The first was that of St. Domingo, where the slaves, 
excited by the pestilent orators of the French Eevolu- 
tion, rose against their masters, and attained their 
horrid triumph by the most savage butchery that his- 
tory has recorded. The other was the abolition move- 
ment in England, where the result was regularly ef- 
fected by the peaceful action of Parliament." (" YicAV," 
i&c, pp. 247-8.) 

But in the first place, where is the evidence that 
the excitement of the slaves in St. Domingo had any- 
thing to do with " the pestilent orators of the French 
Eevolution?" And as to the "savage butchery," 
when it did come, was it all on one side ? Were there 
more whites butchered than there were blacks in that 
murderous process of atrocious retaliation ? But, per- 
adventure, the " Christian Bishop," like most aristo- 
crats, will think it a far more " horrid" thine: for a 
civilized white gentleman to be butchered by a black 

(244) 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 245 

savage, than for a savage black to bo butchered by a 
white gentleman. 

As his voucher in this case, the author quotes " the 
eminent Alison, whose ' History of Europe' is one of 
the most trustworth}' productions of modern litera- 
ture." Kow it is notorious that Alison prostituted 
his office as a historian to the j^urpose of maintaining 
certain political dogmas, and that his work abounds 
with two things — a spirit of aristocratic and absolu- 
tist propagandism, and a certain pious twaddle char- 
acteristic of that sect. And as for his " trustworth- 
iness," it may be judged of from the iiict that ho 
speaks of New England, side by side with Massachu- 
setts and Connecticut, as one of the United States, 
and declares that " all the State judges, from the high- 
est to the lowest, are elected by the people, and are 
liable to be displaced by them ; their tenure of office 
is sometimes for three, sometimes for four, sometimes 
for six years, but never for life ;" giving this last as an 
express proof of the exceedingly radical and corrupt 
character of our political system, a proposition which, 
if true, would not have proved his point, but which, 
at the time he wrote, was false in regard to the judges 
of the Supreme Courts in a majority of the States. 
But*what ma}^ cap the climax of Alison's " trustworth- 
iness" is the unconscious cllrontery with which, in his 
aristocratic ignorance of American affairs, he gravely 
stated and published before the whole world, in a liis- 
tory which was to bo the great work of his life, that 
"one of the last acts of "Washington's life was to 
carry, by his casting vote in Congress^ a commercial 
treaty with Great Britain 1" 

Yet even such a trustworth}-, aristocratic authority 
fails the Bishop; for Alison expressl}- admits tluit, 

21* 



24G SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

when tlio Constituent Assembly had decreed "the 
privileges of equality to all persons of color born of a 
free fiither and mother," " the jMnters openly endeav- 
ored to resist the decree, and civil rear was preparing'' 
when the neoTO insurrection broke forth. The truth 
is the first blood was shed by the whites, and that in 
resistance to the law of the land. And need we resort 
to " pestilent orators" to explain what followed ? Un- 
doubtedly the blacks were savages — a large part of 
them lately from their wild homes in Africa — and like 
savages they dealt with their oppressors. But the 
proper and guilty causes of this horrible tragedy lie 
far back of pestilent Abolitionists and savage blacks ; 
they are found in the tearing of these savages from 
their country and reducing them to slavery. So the 
"horrors" of the French Eevolution itself, about 
which so much rhetoric is expended, are chargeable 
not so much upon the immediate actors in the tragedy 
as upon the tyrannical oppression of the government, 
the licentious living of the upper classes, and the cor- 
ruption and hypocrisy in religion, which had preceded 
and which required this terrible purgation of blood. 
Such is the general course of history. The real 
causes are often remote and concealed ; the apparent 
causes are merely the present occasions or the last 
links in the chain. The prime guilt of the St. Do- 
mingo massacres is not to be charged upon the insur- 
rection of the savage blacks. You might as well 
charge upon the rising sun the killing of the tender 
plants which had been frost-bitten in the preceding 
ni<'-ht. But whoever may be responsible for the St. 
Domingo massacres, the fact is that more human be- 
ings are worked to death in Cuba and on the cotton 
and sugar plantations of the South — ^ycs, literally 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. '217 

worJied to death — every year, than would equal the luiia- 
ber of all the whites who were butchered in St. Do- 
mingo. What shall we say to this ? Let us remember 
that wherever wo may choose to shed our tears or 
expend our rhetoric, God is no respecter of jyersons, and 
the life of the enslaved African, slowly murdered in 
five years, may be as j)recious in his sight as that of 
the chivalrous braggart w^ho is butchered in a mo- 
ment. 

So much for the first case of "internal action." 
The second is that of the emancijDation of eight hun- 
dred thousand slaves in the British West Indies, 
which is represented as also a case " of internal aetion 
by one of the parties concerned." This is a very 
curious description of what was done by an act of the 
British Parliament, Avhere the slaveholders had not a 
solitary representative ; an act the passage of w^hich 
was resisted by those slaveholders to the bitter end, 
and afterwards, in its execution, thwarted by them to 
the best of their ability. Indeed, as I have said, it 
would be hard to find an instance in the history of the 
world where slaveholders, having full control of the 
legislature, have voluntarily relinquished their gripe 
upon their slaves by a legislative act of emancipation. 
The emancipation by act of the British Parliament 
was no more a case of " the internal action of one of 
the parties concerned" than that effected by President 
Lincoln's proclamation is such a case. 

But although the emancipation in the British 
AV'cst Indies is represented as having been "regularly 
effected by the peaceful action of Parliament," the 
" Christian Bishop" is far from being satisfied witli 
it after all. The " eminent Alison" is again aj)pealed 
to, who says: "The precipitate and irretrievable 



248 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Btep of emancipation forced on the Legislature in 
1834, by benevolent but incautious, and perhaps mis- 
taken, feeling, has already occasioned so great a de- 
cline in the produce of the British AYest Indies, and 
excited such general expectations of a still greater 
and increasing deficiency, that the impulse thereby 
given to the foreign slave trade to fill up the gap, 
has been unbounded, and, it is to be feared, almost 
irremediable." And further on, he adds : "The ad- 
mirable effects of the abolition of the slave trade 
have been completely frustrated, and the humane 
but deluded inhabitants of Great Britain are burdened 
with twenty millions, to ruin, in the end, their own 
planters, consign to barbarism their own Negroes, 
cut off a principal branch of their naval strength, 
and double the slave trade in extent, and quadruple 
it in horrors throughout the world." 

As to these crocodile tears over the slave trade, it 
suflices to refer the reader to the express testimony 
of Lord John Ptussell. and Dr. Livingstone, already 
cited. That will show the " trustworthy" character 
of Alison's statements. And as to another assertion 
that " the multitude forced on this measure of imme- 
diate emancipation" in spite of the counter wishes 
of AYilberforce and Fox, who are represented to have 
been in fiivour of gradual abolition ; it is simply a 
gross misrepresentation. Was Wilberforce opposed 
to the immediate emancipation of 1834? Rather he 
was ready to chant his " Nunc dimittis," as upon his 
death-bed, he received the glorious assurance of its 
consummation. That Wilberforce and his friends 
aimed at first, say in 1806, at a gradual emancipa- 
tion, is undoubtedly true. But who defeated them 
in this design, and forced on them the plan of imme- 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 249 

diate emancipation ? Not the "fanatical multitude of 
deluded abolitionists," but the really fanatical and in- 
fatuated resistance and obstinacy of the slaveholders 
themselves, who opposed and tlnvarted every at- 
tempted measure of gradual improvement. 

On the 9th of July, 1823, Lord Bathurst, Secretary 
of State for the colonies, addressed a circular to the 
Governors, commanding them to submit definite 
ameliorations to the leo-islaturcs. 

After seven years, eight colonics had adopted none 
of the reforms prescribed. The twelve others had 
absolutely refused the measures relative to religious 
instruction and the amelioration of justice; three 
only had abolished the Sunday markets. All the 
chartered colonies refused the appointment of pro- 
tectors, the concession of one day in the week to the 
slaves, the savings banks, the restrictions on sales, 
and the modification of punishment. Except at 
Trinidad and St. Lucia, no important amelioration 
was accepted, and those which were adopted re- 
mained well nigh without effect.* 

That the British monarch and the aristocracy, 
which controlled the Parliament, were natiiully aiwl 
instinctively opposed to the abolition of slavery j and 
that they required some force to be brought to bear 
upon them from some quarter, in order to secure 
their consent to the measure, need not be donied. 
But that this force was that of an io-Tiorunt i-al.I.h* 
of a "deluded multitude," is a flagrant misrei)ro.scnta- 
tion. It was the force of the Christian sentiment of 
the great mass of the intelligent people of Great 

* Sec Cocliin's Results of Eranncipfition, pp. 318 and ."I'O, 
where the proposed umcHorations arc given at largo. 



250 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Britain. This has been well stated by the Duke de 
Broglie, in the following terms : 

" We do too much honour, in fact, to the English 
government, and we would wrong her too much, in 
attributing the abolition of slavery on her part cither 
to lofty views of wisdom and foresight or to Machia- 
vellian combinations ; on this point the English gov- 
ernment has neither gone in advance of the times 
nor directed events ; it has limited itself to maintain- 
ing the statu quo, so long as it has not been forced 
from it ; it has resisted for fifteen years the abolition 
of slavery ; it has defended all the intermediate posi- 
tions step by step, and has only yielded, on each oc- 
casion, to necessit}". 

" We would also do too much honour to the philoso- 
phy and philanthropy of England in assigning them 
the chief part in this great enterprise. Philosophers 
and philanthropists have, doubtlessly, figured glori- 
ously in the number of the combatants, but it is the 
religious spirit which has borne the heat and burden 
of the day; and it is to this that reverts, before 
everything, the honor of success. 

" It is religion that has truly freed the Negroes in the 
English colonies ; it is this Avhich raised uj), in the be- 
ginning of the struggle, the Clarksons, the Wilber- 
forces, Granville Sharps, and so many others, and 
armed them with indomitable courage and unshaken 
perseverance ; it is religion which has progressively 
formed, first in the nation, then in Parliament itself, 
that great abolition party, which goes on swelling 
from day to day, infiltrating itself, as it were, into 
all parties, calling them all, and the government 
first of all, to account, and it is this party which, 
profiting during forty years by every event and 



SLAVERY AND EMANCITATION. 251 

every circiiDistaiicc, successively carried tlic aboli- 
tion of the slave trade in 1807 ; inspired through its 
representatives, in 1815, the declarations of the Con- 
gress of Vienna, and, later, those of the Congress 
of Verona ; dictated in 1823 the motion of ]\Ir. Bux- 
ton, the resolutions of ]Mr. Canning, and the circular 
of Lord Bathurst ; hurled, in 1831, on the colonies the 
Order in the Council of November 2d, thus render- 
ing the abolition of slavery inevitable in 1832, and 
the maintenance of apprenticeship impossible in 
1838." 

But the " Christian Bishop" seems controlled almost 
exclusively by a "wise expediency" ^vith reference 
to certain peculiar views of Political Economy. And, 
though he protests his desire for the jibolition of 
slavery, and speaks half approvingly of the West 
India emancipation as having been accomplished by 
''internal action," peacefully, under the authority of 
the British Parliament, — yet he represents this eman- 
cipation as an utter failure, and holds up its results 
in terrorem before all fanatical abolitionists. 1st, The 
production of the islands has been greatly diminished, 
as shown by the decrease of exports and imports ; 
2d, The blacks are lazy, idle, vicious, and becoming 
hopelessly degraded. These results were predicted 
by the pro-slavery croakers from the start ; and they 
continue to insist upon the fulfilment of their pre- 
dictions with as much assurance and solemnity, as 
if facts had not already shown their allegations to 
be either altogether futile, or utterly ialse. The first 
allegation, if true, proves nothing. Suppose exports 
hiivo (Iwiiidit'd, und piaiittTs and planters' estates 
l)cen i-uined; the object was not lo increase the ex- 
ports or the wealth of tiie i,->kinds, but the conifoi-t. 



252 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

and happiness of their inhabitants. The " Christian 
Bishop" ought to know that the comfort and happi- 
ness of the mass of the people is not directly propor- 
tional to the increase of national wealth, but, on the 
contrary, may often be in an inverse ratio. Distri- 
bution and consumption are quite as important consi- 
derations, in anywise and humane Political Economy, 
as 2jroduction. Suppose the Bishop of Vermont and 
myself expend upon ourselves and our families some 
three thousand dollars a year more than would be 
necessary for our support in some comfortable negro 
hut, with coarse but wholesome negro fare \ and sup- 
pose some slave dealer should transfer us and our 
families from the former condition to the latter, and 
set us, our wives, our sons, and our daughters, at 
hard work on his plantation; we should probably 
produce more merchantable articles than we now do, 
and our chivalrous and thrifty master would have 
this surplus, together with the value of the three 
thousand dollars saved, to add to the gross exports 
of the country, and would put the proceeds into his 
pocket. He might grow rich faster than we do — and 
faster than he would without our services. Whether 
we, our families, or our countr}^ would thereby be 
benefited, I need not undertake to decide. 

The second allegation is simply false. That this 
is so, and that the first is but partially true, I shall 
proceed to show by official statements, and by the 
concurrent testimony of eye-witnesses. I shall show, 
moreover, that whatever of failure or of incidental 
evil has been connected with the emancipation, has 
resulted, not from the freedom or character of the 
blacks, but, partly from contemporaneous changes 
in tariff regulations, and, most of all, from the per- 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 253 

verse and recalcitrant opposition and interference 
of the planters themselves. 

" The llouse of Assembly at the time of emancipa- 
tion possessed the fullest powers to remedy any de- 
fect in that great measure. But it abused its powers. 
Instead of enacting laws calculated to elevate and 
benefit the people, it pursued the contrary course. 
By an Ejectment Act it gave to the planters the 
right to turn out the enfranchised peasantry, with- 
out regard to sex or age, at a week's notice, from 
the houses in which they had been born and bred ; 
to root up their provision grounds, and to cut down 
the fruit trees which gave them both shelter and 
food ; in order that, through dread of the conse- 
quences of refusal, the negroes might be driven to 

work on the planters' own terms Driven from 

his cabin on the estate by the harsh or unjust treat- 
ment of his former master, the free labourer had to 
build a cottage for himself Immediately the cus- 
toms on shingles for tlie roof to shelter his family 
from the seasons were more than doubled ; while tlio 
duty on the staves and hoops for sugar hogsheads, 
the planters' property, was greatly reduced. And 
when the houses w^ere built, they were assessed at a 
rate which, in some parishes, bore so heavily on tbo 
occupants, as to lead to the abandonment of their 
dwellings for shanties of mud and boughs."* .... 
" Some proprietors at emancipation drove their 
labourers from the estates, and one was mentioned 
wlio was living at the time on the north side of the 
island. He swore that he would not allow a ' nigger' 

* Edward Bean Underbill. The West Indies, their social and 
religious condition, pp. 21G-18. 



254 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

to live within three miles of his house. Of course 
the man was sj^eodily ruined."* 

'' If the House of Assembly has had any polic}' at 
all in its treatment of the labouring classes, it has 
been a ' policy of alienation.' Ody the perpetual 
interposition of the British government has pre- 
vented the enfranchised negro from being reduced 
to the condition of a serf by the selfish partisan 

legislation of the Jamaica planters As slaves, 

the people were never instructed in husbandry, or in 
the general cultivation of the soil ; as free men, the 
legislature has utterly neglected them, and they have 
had to learn as they could the commonest processes 
of agriculture. ISTo attempt has been made to pro- 
vide a fitting education for them ; for the paltry 
grant of some two thousand five hundred pounds a 
year cannot in any sense be said to be a provision 

for their instruction Speaking of this feature 

of Jamaica legislation, Earl Grey, writing in 1853, 
says : — ' The Statute Book of the island for the last 
six years presents nearly a blank, as regards laws 
calculated to improve the condition of the poj^ula- 
tion, and to raise them in the scale of civilization.* 
.... Happily the present governor, following in the 
steps of many of his predecessors, deals impartially 
wnth every class, strives to prevent as far as possible 
the mischievous eifects of the selfish policy that has 
been pursued, and exerts himself to rescue the go- 
vernment from the grasp of personal interest and 
ambition."f 

The following is Mr. Underhill's conclusion as to 
the general results of the experiment in Jamaica: 

^- Ibid., pp. 268-9. t Ibid., pp. 222-3. 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 255 

"Emancipation did not, indeed, bring Avealth to the 
planter; it did not restore fortunes already trembling 
in the grasp of mortgagees and usurers ; it did not 
bring back the palmy days of foreign commerce to 
Kingston, nor assist in the maintenance of protective 
privileges in the markets of Great Britain; it did not 
give wisdom to planters, nor skill to agriculturists and 
manufacturers ; but it has brought an amount of hap- 
piness, of improvement, of material wealth and pros- 
pective elevation to the enfranchised slave in which 
every lover of man must rejoice. Social order every- 
where prevails. Breaches of the peace are rare. 
Crimes, e«tpecially in their darker and more sanguin- 
ary forms, are few. Persons and property are- per- 
fectly safe. The planter sleeps in securit}^, dreads no 
insurrection, fears not the torch of the incendiary, 
travels da}- or night in the loneliest solitudes without 
anxiety or care. The people are not drunkards, even 
if they be impure ; and this sad feature in the moral 
life of the people is meeting its check in the growing 
respect for the marriage tie, and the improved life of 
the Avhite community in their midst The gene- 
ral prospects of the island are improving. Estates 
are now but rarely abandoned, while in many places 
portions of old estates are being brought again under 
cultivation. It is admitted by all 2)arties that sugar 
cultivation is profitable. At the same time, it is very 
doubtful whether any large proportion of the emanci- 
pated population will ever be induced to return to the 
estates, or, at least, in sufficient nnml>ers to secure tho 
enlargement of the area of cultivation to the extent 
of former days. Higher wages will do somewhat to 
obtain labourers, and they can ]»e atVorded, and the 
return of confidence will bring capital ; but the tasto 



256 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

and habit of independence will continue to operate, 
and induce the agricultural classes to cling to the little 
holdings which they so industriously occupy." * 

Captain Darling, the Governor of Jamaica, gives 
the following testimony to the capacity of the Negro 
for freedom : — " The proportion of those who are set- 
tling themselves industriously on their holdings, and 
rapidly rising in the social scale, while commanding 
the respect of all classes of the community, and some 
of whom arc, to a limited extent, themselves the em- 
j)loyers of hired labour, paid for either in money or 
kind, is, I am happy to think, not only steadily in- 
creasing, but at the present moment is far more ex- 
tensive than w^as anticipated by those who are cogni- 
zant of all that took place in this colony in the earlier 
days of Negro freedom. There can be no doubt, in 
fact, that an independent, respectable, and, I believe, 
trustworthy middle class is rapidly forming. If the 
real object of emancipation was to place the freed 
man in such a position that he might work out his 
own advancement in the social scale, and prove his 
capacity for the full and rational enjoyment of j)er- 
sonal independence secured b}^^ constitutional liberty, 
Jamaica will afford more instances, even in proj^ortion 
to its large population, of such gratifying results, than 
any other land in wdiich African slavery once existed. 
Jamaica at this moment presents, as I believe, at once | 
the strongest proof of the complete success of the 
great measure of emancipation as relates to the ca- 
pacity of the emancipated race for freedom, and the 
most unfortunate instance of a descent in the scale of 
agricultural and commercial importance as a colonial 
community." 

*Ibid., pp. 455-7. 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 257 

Lord John Eusscll, on opening the discussion, Juno 
16, 1848, on the conckisions of the report of the com- 
mittee, was able to sum up the history of the results 
of emancipation at this epoch in these words : 

"The object of the act of 1834 was to give liberty 
to eight hundred thousand persons, and to secure the 
independence, prosperity, and happiness of those who 
were slaves. No one denies, I think, that this has 
been accomplished. I believe that there is nowhere 
a happier class of labourers than in the AYest Indies. 
This satisfactory condition is the consequence of the 
act of 1834." 

Let us interrogate the history of the ten years fol- 
lowing, and we encounter the same fiicts, verified by 
the most severe or the most indulgent testimon}-. 

At Guiana, a magnificent province of sixty thousand 
square miles, traversed by the beautiful river Esse- 
quibo, twenty-one miles broad at the mouth, and 
inhabited by more than one hundred and twenty 
thousand souls, a colonist, who is, moreover, very 
much of a pessimist, writes : 

" The portion of the native population which in 
other countries constitutes the laboring class is esti- 
mated at seventy thousand souls. They present the 
singular spectacle, which can be contemplated in no 
other part of the world, of peojDle scarcely emerged 
from slavery, yet already possessing property in 
houses and lands, for which they have ])Mi<i more tlian 
a million pounds sterling." 

A French commission, charged, in lSr)3, by the gov- 
ernment of Martinico with visiting the two islands of 
Barbadoes and Trinidad, writes : 

"The aspect of Barbadoes is dazzling in an agri- 
cultural and manufacturing point of viow. 'I'lie entire 
22>^ 



258 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

island is one vast field of sugar-canes, standing evenly 
one after the other, planted at an average distance of 
six square feet. Not a weed sullies these beautiful 
and regular plantations. The sugar-works are exten- 
sive and neat, and all the arrangements for manufac- 
ture are exquisite." . . . The population of the island 
is immense, amounting to one hundred and thirty-six 
thousand souls on one hundred and sixty-seven square 
miles, on a soil which does not and cannot belong to 

it " Trinidad has endured harder trials, from 

which she has emerged, as we shall see, by replacing 
her twenty thousand freed negroes in part by Indians ; 
but the happiness and tranquillity of its freedmen are 
the same." 

Here is the picture which a colonist of Jamaica 
drew, at the same epoch, of the state of the coloured 
community, which almost entirely composes the pop- 
ulation of this island, occupied, on a surface of sixty-four 
hundred square miles, by three hundred and sixty- 
nine thousand blacks and only sixteen thousand 
whites : 

" It may be supposed that the whites have the pre- 
eminence there But apart from that pre- 
eminence which results from wealth and intelligence 
in every community, the whites have no privilege 
over their fellow-citizens. ... The colored man holds 
a position in no wise inferior, and we find no reason 
to complain that he is on the same footing with our- 
selves. . . . Our bar is not crowded, but coloured law- 
yers hold the first places there. Coloured physicians 
practice in concurrence with the whites. . . . These 
are facts which it is important to establish, for all this 
progress has been accomplished since the abolition of 
slavery in the island. We have proved by experience 



SLAVERY AND EMANCirATION. 259 

that tho coloured man can raise himself to the first 
rank of civil society, and hold his place there as wv\[ 
as any European by origin." * 

It may be affirmed that, if the same protective 
tariff had secured the sale of colonial sugar at high 
prices a few years longer, production would have rap- 
idly revived, and the colonists would have really 
had nothing of which to complain. 

Xearly a million of men, women, and children have 
passed from the condition of cattle to the rank of 
rational beings. Numerous marriages have elevated 
the family above the mire of nameless promiscuous- 
ness. Paternity has replaced illegitimacy. Churches 
and schools are opened. Eeligion, before mute, fac- 
tious, or dishonoured, has resumed its dignity and lib- 
erty. Men who had nothing have acquired property ; 
lands which were waste have been occupied ; inade- 
quate populations have increased; detestable processes 
of culture and manufacture have been replaced by 
better ; a race reputed inferior, vicious, cruel, lasciv- 
ious, idle, refractory to civilization, religion, and 
instruction, has shown itself honest, gentle, disposed 
to fomily life, accessible to Christianity, eager for 
instruction. Those of its members who have returned 
to vagrancy, sloth, and corruption are not a reproacli 
to their race as much as to the servitude which lia<l 
left them wallowing in their native ignorance and 
depravity; but these are the minority. The majority 
labor, and show themselves far superior to the auxil- 
iaries which China and India send to tiie colonists, 
in two words, wealth has suffered little, civilization 
lias gained much; such is the balance-sheet of tho 
English experiment. f 

* Cochin, Res. of Eman., p- 330. f Sec Cochin. 



260 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Doubtless numerous blacks refuse to labour, flee to 
the mountains, and regard freedom as the right to do 
nothino;. Cast the blame of this on the nature of the 
soil and the nature of man. In no country of the 
world does man labour more than is necessary to sat- 
isfy his needs, tastes, and desires ; in no country of 
the world does man labour willingly for others, when 
he can find it to his advantage to labour for himself. 
Cast the blame of it, above all, on slavery. "Whence 
comes, then, this abhorrence by the former slaves of 
their former labour ? Freedom is the occasion of it, 
but servitude the cause. A man visited an abandoned 
plantation, about which the freed slaves were lazily 
sleeping. " See what freedom has made of labour," 
said his companions. " See what servitude has made 
of labourers," was his reply. 

I add the following statements from a very care- 
ful and impartial work by William G-. Sewell, who 
visited the British West Indies, in 1859, and critically 
scrutinized their condition. 

"We, in the United States, have heard of aban- 
doned properties in the West Indies, and, without 
much investigation, have listened to the planters' 
excuse — the indolence of the jSTegro, who refuses to 
work except under compulsion. But I shall be able 
to show that, in those colonies where estates have 
been abandoned, the labouring classes, instead of 
passing from servitude to indolence and idleness, 
have set up for themselves, and that small proprie- 
tors, since emancipation, have increased a hundred 

fold.'' " It is a fact which speaks volumes, 

that, within the last fifteen years, in spite of the ex- 
traordinary price of land and the low rate of wages, 
the small proprietors of Barbadoes holding less than 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 201 

five acres have increased from eleven hundred to 
three thousand five hundred and thirty-seven. A great 
majority of these proprietors were formerly slaves, subse- 
quently free labourers, and finally landholders. This is 
certainly an evidence of industrious habits, and a 
remarkable contradiction to the prevailing idea that 
the negro will work only under compulsion. 

" That idea was formed and fostered from the 
habits of the Negro as a slave ; his habits as a free- 
man, developed under a wholesome stimulus and 
settled by time, are in striking contrast to his habits 
as a slave. I am simply stating a truth in regard to 
the Barbadian Creole, which here, at least, will not 
he denied. I have conversed on the subject with all 
classes and conditions of people, and none are more 
ready to admit than the planters themselves, that 
the free labourer in Barbadoes is a better, more 
cheerful, and more industrious workman than the 
slave ever was under a system of compulsion." 

And, again, of an island very differently circum- 
stanced from Barbadoes, the same author writes : "I 
have taken some pains to trace the Creole labourers 
of Trinidad from the time of emancipation, after 
they left the estates and dispersed, to the present 
day; and the great majority of them can, I think, 
be followed, step by step, not downward in the path 
of idleness and poverty, but uj^ward in the scale of 
civilization to positions of greater independence."* 

"If free labour be tested by any other gauge tlian 
tliat of sugar-production, its success in the West 
Indies is established beyond all cavil and beyond all 

* Sewell's Ordeal of Free Labour in tbc West Indies, pp. 34, 
85, 39. 40. 



262 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

peradvcnture. If the people merit any considera- 
tion whatever — if their independence, their comfort, 
their industry, their education, form any part of a 
country's prosperity — then the West Indies are a 
hundredfold more prosperous now than they were 
in the most flourishing times of slavery. If peace 
be an element of prosperity — if it be important to 
enjoy uninterrupted tranquillity, and be secure from 
servile war and insurrection — then the "West Indies 
have now an advantage that they never possessed 
before it was given them by emancipation. If a 
largely-extended commerce be an indication of pros- 
perity, then all the West Indies, Jamaica alone ex- 
cepted, have progressed under a system of free 
labour, although that system hitherto has been but 
imperfectly developed. 

" I have endeavoured to convey a correct idea of the 
depreciation of commerce and decline of the sugar- 
cultivation in Jamaica ; and I have also endeavoured 
to show that this depreciation is an exception to the 
present general prosperity of the British West Indies 
— that it commenced before emancipation was pro- 
jected, and can be traced directly to other causes 
than the introduction of freedom. Long before Mr. 
Canning, in his place in Parliament, became the un- 
willing organ of the national will, and explained, in 
terms not to be mistaken, that the demand of the 
British people for the liberation of slaves could be 
no longer resisted, West India commerce was in the 
most alarming state of depression, owing to the 
heavy outlay and expenditure that a system of slave 
labour imperatively required. Testimony pointing 
directly and overwhelmingly to this conclusion, has 
been given by planters themselves — by men put for- 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 203 

ward as the special champions of tlie plantiiifr in- 
terest — and fills a score_of Parliamentary blue-books. 
Upon their statements, the report of the select com- 
mittee on the condition of the West India colonies, 
printed in 1832, declared that " there was abundant 
evidence of an existing distress for ten or twelve 
3^ears previous." That report described an impend- 
ing, if not an actual, ruin, that we look in vain for it 
the iDresent day. Jamaica, in 1860, and she only in 
the one particular of sugar-cultivation, is the single 
British island whose industry and enterprise remain, 
as we are told they formerly were, exhausted and 
paralyzed. 

" Let us appeal once more to figures. The colony of 
British Guiana, for four years prior to emancipation, 
exported an annual average of 98,000,000 lbs. of sugar, 
while, from 1856 to 1860, its annual average export 
rose to 100,600,000 lbs. The colony of Trinidad, for 
four years prior to emancipation, annually exported 
an average of 37,000,000 lbs. of sugar, while, from 
1856 to 1860, its annual average exports rose to 
62,000,000 lbs. The colony of Barbadoes, for four 
years prior to emancipation, annually exported an 
average of 32,800,000 lbs. of sugar, while, from 1856 
to 1860, its annual average export rose to 78,000,000 
lbs. The colony of Antigua, for four years prior to eman- 
cipation, exported an annual average of ID, 500, 000 ll.s. 
of sugar, while, from 1856 to 1860, its ainmal average 
export rose to 24,400,000 lbs. This is a total exhibit 
of 265,000,000 lbs. annually exported now, instead of 
187,300,000 lbs. before emancipation, or <in r.vccss of 
exports, with free labour, of scventy-scvcn million^ seven 
hundred thousand pounds of suijar. 

"In the matter of imports, wo find that the colony 



264 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

of BritiBh Guiana, between the years 1820 and 1834, 
imported annually to the value of ^3,700,000 ; that 
the annual imports of Trinidad, during the same pe- 
riod, averaged in value $1,690,000 ; that the import 
of Barbadoes averaged in value $2,850,000 ; and those 
of Antigua $600,000. In the year 1859 the imports 
of Guiana were valued at $5,660,000 ; those of Trini- 
dad at $3,000,000 ; those of Barbadoes at $4,660,000 ; 
and those of Antigua at $1,280,000. The total exhibit 
represents an annual import trade, at the present 
time, of the value of $14,600,000, against $8,840,000 
before emancipation, or an excess of imports, under a 
free system, of the value of five million seven hundred and 
sixty thousand dollars. 

" In the exports I have made mention of sugar only ; 
but if all other articles of commerce be included and 
a comparison be instituted between the import and 
export trade of the colonies of Guiana, Trinidad, Bar- 
badoes, and Antigua, under slavery, and their trade 
under freedom, the annual balance in favour of free- 
dom, will be found to have reached already fifteen 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS at the Very lowest estimate. 

" This large increase in the trade of four out of the 
five principal West India colonies is sufficient, I think, 
to demonstrate (were there no other evidence at hand) 
that free labour, with which four have prospered, can- 
not alone be responsible for the decline of the fifth. 
The increase of sugar-production also demonstrates 
the improved industry of the islands to a very remark- 
able extent ; for it must be remembered that the agri- 
cultural force now engaged in cane-cultivation is 
scarcely more than half what it was in times of slavery, 
when the energies of the whole population were di- 
rected to this single end. One of the most natural 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 205 

uud legitimate results of cmanci2:)ation was to allow 
every man to do what seemed to him best — to achieve 
independence if he could — to pursue, in any case, the 
path of industry most agreeable to his tastes, and 
most conducive to his happiness. When we look at 
the vast political and social structure that has been 
demolished — the new and grander edifice that has 
been erected — ^the enemies that have been vanquished 
— the prejudices that have been uprooted — the educa- 
tion that has been sown broadcast, the ignorance that 
has been removed — the industry that has been trained 
and fostered — Ave cannot pause to criticise defects, for 
we are amazed at the progress of so great a revolu- 
tion within the brief space of twenty-five years. Those, 
who have never lived in a slave country little know 
how the institution entwines itself round the vitals of 
society and poisons the sources of political life. The 
physical condition of the slave is lost in the contem- 
plation of a more overwhelming argument. Looking 
at the question from a high national standpoint, it is^ 
comparatively speaking, a matter of temporary' inte- 
rest and minor importance whether the bondsman is 
treated with kindness and humanity, as in America, 
or with short-sighted brutality, as in Cuba. It is the 
influence of the system upon the energies and morality 
of a people that demands the calmest and most ear- 
nest consideration of patriots and statesmen. The 
present is, perhaps, not so much to be condemned, as 
the future, from which all eyes are studiously averted, 
is to be dreaded. An act of the British Parliament, 
and a vote of twenty millions sterling, were sufficient 
to release 800,000 slaves; but no act of the British 
Parliament could thus summarily remove' the curse 
that slavery had bequeathed to those islands, and had 
23 



266 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

left to fester in their heart's core. Time only could 
do that ; time has not done it yet. 

" I have endeavoiired to show — and I hope success- 
fully — that the experiment of free labour in the West 
Indies has established its superior economy, as well as 
its possibility. I^ot a single island fails to demon- 
strate that the Creoles of African descent, in all their 
avocations and in all their pursuits, work, under a 
free system, for proper remuneration, though their 
labour is often ignorantly wasted and misdirected. 
That arises from want of education, want of training, 
want of good example. I have not sought to justify 
the maudlin sympathy that the mere mention of these 
people seems to excite in certain quarters, nor have I 
advocated their interests to the detriment of any other 
interest whatever — I have simply maintained, from 
every evidence before me, that the right of one class 
to enjoy the wages and fruits of their labour, does not 
and cannot injuriously affect the rights of any other 
class, or damage, as some foolishly pretend, a country's 
prosperity. An ethnological issue, quite foreign to^s 
the subject, has been dragged into the argument. ]^o 
one can deny that, up to the present time, the Afri- 
can, in intelligence, in industry, and in force of cha- 
racter, has been, and still is, the inferior of the Eu- 
ropean, but it is a tremendous mistake to suppose that 
his intelligence can ever be quickened, his industry 
sharpened, or his character strengthened under 
slavery; and it is worse than a mistake to consign 
him to slavery for defects that slavery itself engen- 
dered, or to condemn him because the cardinal virtues 
of civilization did not spring into life upon the instant 
the heel of oppression was removed. With the des- 
tiny of the West Indies the welfare of the people is 



SLAVERY AND EMANCITATION. 207 

insepanxLly bound up, and it is as -wrong to overlook 
their faults as to deny that they have pron;ressed un- 
der freedom, or to doubt that by the spread of educa- 
tion and under the dominion of an enlio-htened trov- 
crnmcnt, they will become still more elevat-ed in the 
scale of civilization. Those who are not afraid of the 
confession will admit that the West Indian Creole has 
made a good fight. 

" The act of emancipation virtually did no more than 
place liberty within his reach. Actual independence 
he had to achieve for himself. All untutored and un- 
disciplined as he was, he had to contend against 
social prejudice, political power, and a gigantic inter- 
est before he could enjoy the boon that the act nomi- 
nally conferred upon him. The planter was bred to 
the belief that his business could only be conducted 
with serf labour, and he clung to the fallacy long after 
serf labour had been legally abolished. Witness the 
land tenure, which still exists in a mitigated form 
throughout all the West Indies, and requires the 
tenant, on peril of summary ejection, to give his ser- 
vices exclusively to his landlord. The instinct of 
self-interest, the faintest desire for independence, 
would prompt any one to reject such a bondage. 
Yet this rejection is the sole accusation brouglit 
against the negro, this the only ground upon which 
he has been condemned. 

" 1 have endeavoured to point out the two paths that 
lay open to the West Indian Creole after the abolition 
of slavery. The one was to remain an estate serf 
aiid make sugar for the planter, the other was to rent 
or purchase land, and work for estates, if he ]>](ase(|, 
but be socially independent of a master's control. I 
endeavored to follow these two clas«;os of people in 



268 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

the paths they pursued — the majority, who have 
become independent, and the minority, who have 
remained estate laborers, and I have shown that the 
condition of the former is infinitely above the condi- 
tion of the latter. Is this anywhere denied ? Can 
any one say that it was not the lawful right of these 
people thus to seek, and, having found, to cherish 
their independence ? Can any one say that by doing 
so they wronged themselves, the planters, or the gov- 
ernment under which they lived ? Can any one say 
they are to blame if, by their successful attempts to 
elevate themselves above the necessitous and preca- 
rious career of labour for daily hire, the agricultural 
field force was weakened and the production of sugar- 
cane diminished? 

" Yet this is the fairest case that can be made out 
for the oligarchies of these West India islands. They 
have denounced the negro for his defective industry ; 
but what, we may ask, have they themselves done — 
in what have they given proof of their nobler civiliza- 
tion and higher intelligence ? Surely a most important 
duty devolved upon them. They were the privileged 
aristocracy, the landed proprietors, the capitalists, the 
rulers of the colonies — as they still are. Their polit- 
ical power was supreme. Yet what have they done, 
not for the permanent prosperity of the islands — ^for 
the question need not be asked — but in behalf of their 
own special interests ? They arraigned the negro for 
deserting their estates and ruining their fortunes, 
when they themselves were absentees, and were pay- 
ing the legitimate profits of their business to agents 
and overseers. They offered the independent peasant 
no pecuniary inducement, or its equivalent, to prefer 
their service, but they attempted to obtain his work 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 209 

for less remuneration than he could earn in any other 
employment. They never cared for the comfort or 
happiness of their tenants, or sought to inspire them 
with confidence and contentment. They made no 
effort to elevate labour above the degraded level at 
which slavery left it, and they never set an example 
to their inferiors of the industry that is still needed 
in the higher as well as in the lower classes of West 
Indian society. Enterprise never prompted them to 
encourage the introduction of labour-saving arts. Yet 
these were measures that demanded the action of an 
enlightened legislature and the consideration of an 
influential proprietary long before scarcity of labour 
became a subject of complaint. Instead of averting 
the evil they dreaded, they hastened its consumma- 
tion, and injured their cause still more deeply by the 
false and evasive plea that the idleness of the creolo 
was the cause of a commercial and agricultural de- 
pression that they had brought entirely on themselves. 
Is it any argument against the industry of the labour- 
ing classes of America that a large proportion 
annually become proprietors and withdraw from ser- 
vice for daily hire? Yet this is precisely what the 
West Indian Creole has done ; this is the charge on 
which ho has been arraigned, this is the crime for 
which he has been condemned.*" 

" I have not assumed, in aught I have written, that 
the West Indian Creole is yet capable of self-govern- 
ment. I have simply endeavoured to show that, under 
freedom, sources of industry and ]n-ospority have been 
opened that, under slavery, would luivo remained for 
ever closed. I have endeavoured to show that for tlio 
West Indies freedom has been the best policy, thougli 

*SewcU, p. 312, etc. 



270 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

the moralist may condemn an argument that sets 
forth another motive for doing right than the sake of 
right itself If emancipation did no more than relieve 
the West Indian slave from the supervision of a task- 
master, I should have nothing left to say; for I 
admitted, at the outset, that the condition of the 
labouring classes was but one among many interests 
whose ruin, if personal liberty could ruin them, would 
make us disbelieve in truth itself But freedom, 
when allowed fair play, injured the prosperity of 
none of these West Indian colonies. It saved them 
from a far deeper and more lasting depression than 
any they have yet known. It was a boon conferred 
upon all classes of society ; upon planter and upon 
labourer; upon all interests — upon commerce and 
agriculture, upon industry and education, upon mo- 
rality and religion. And if a perfect measure of 
success remains to be achieved, let not freedom be 
condemned; for the obstacles to overcome were 
great, and the workers were few and unwilling. 
Let it be remembered that a generation, born in the 
night of slavery, has not yet passed away, and that 
men who were taught to believe in that idol and its 
creations still control the destinies of these distant 
colonies. Keluctantly they learned the lesson forced 
upon them ; slowly their opposition jdelded to the 
dawning of conviction ; but, now that the meridian 
of truth has been reached, we may hope that light 
will dispel all the shadows of slavery, and confound 
the logic of its champions when they falsely assert 
that emancipation has ruined the British Islands.*" 

Such is the result of emancipation in the British 
West Indies, and it is a triumphant success — a suc- 
* Sewell, p. 324. 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 271 

cess which every year only renders more and more 
complete and unquestionable — a success which set- 
tles forever the practicability and safety of imme- 
diate emancipation; for the experiment was tried on 
a scale sufficiently large, and under circumstances 
sufficiently untoward; yet eight hundred thousand 
bondmen are made free without bloodshed and with- 
out disturbance. What if more planters had been 
impoverished ? AVhat if exports had really dwindled 
and commerce decayed ? What were all that, to bo 
l)ut in the scale against the freedom and happiness 
of eight hundred thousand human beings ? One 
would have expected a " Christian Bishop" to have 
thought of the comfort and elevation of myriads of 
his fellow men, rather than of the falling otf of a 
few millions in the produce of sugar and coffee. 

The author of the " Yiew" has devoted a laroro 
space to copious extracts from the recent work of 
Joseph Kay, Esq., setting forth the almost incredible 
degradation, ignorance, vice, and wretchedness of 
the labouring classes in Great Britain; — and all this 
as an oifset for the crimes and cruelties and miseries 
charged upon slavery. He evidently thinks that he 
has found a treasure; and he turns it over and ex- 
amines it on all sides with undissembled satisfaction, 
emphasizing his description with a copious supply 
of italics. 

In reply, I beg to call attention to the following 
points : 

1st. Tlie " Christian Bishop" seems to have for- 
gotten his Political Economy in this case completely ; 
for, while it is admitted that this degraded and 
wretched condition of the lower classes in England 
is the result of modern deterioration, in comparison 



272 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

"with the good old times of Fortescue and the feudal 
system, it is notorious also that no nation in Europe 
has, in the same time, increased as G-reat Britain has 
done, in wealth, in production, in exports, in com- 
mercial activity. The social and political s^^stem 
under which such a result has been achieved ought, 
on the principle of this wretchedly one-sided Politi- 
cal Economy, which looks at money and forgets men, 
to be regarded as a complete success. 

2d. This state of the English poorer classes is not 
held up and defended by Mr. Kay, or by English or 
American abolitionists, as being perfectly right, au- 
thorized and sanctioned by both the Old Testament 
and the New. Neither is it a necessary result of 
their freedom, as the condition of the labouring 
population of Yermont will suffice to demonstrate. 

3d. There is fault somewhere ; and that fault is in 
the laws, in the social system, in the right of primo- 
geniture and in the aristocratic castes, as well as in the 
people themselves. The legislation of England has 
been too much on that system of Political Economy 
which looks at money and not at man, and which 
tends to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. 

4th. This condition of the poor, however, even the 
aristocracy of England do not endeavour to conceal. 
They do not forbid the fullest investigation and the 
freest criticism. They make no threats of tar and 
feathers, or lifelong imprisonment, or a felon's doom, 
against the most inquisitive and free-spoken ob- 
server; if they did, their responsibility for the exist- 
ing evils would be very different from what it is. 

5th. The wretched condition of the English labourer 
is not the result of the development of manufacturing 
industry, but quite the contrary. This alone has 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 27;] 

saved him from still greater wretchedness. It is 
admitted on all hands that the pauperism of the 
agricultural districts exceeds that of the nKiiiiifao- 
turing; and Ireland has no manufactures woi-lli 
mentioning. It has been the policy of the slave- 
holders and of their democratic allies in this country, 
by withholding protection from our manufactures, 
to reduce our free labouring classes to a common 
level with the wretched labourers of Great Britain 
and Europe, being left to compete with them in the 
great labour market of the world. 

6th. It is triumphantly announced that there arc 
in England and Wales nearly eight millions of persons 
who can neither read nor write. But we must remember 
that in Kineveh there were " more than sixscore 
thousand persons that could not discern between 
their right hand and their left," and yet it is not to 
be inferred that Nineveh was a city of fools. Be- 
sides, it would have been more to the purpose to 
compare the North Avith the South in this matter; 
Vermont, say, with Virginia, or Connecticut with 
South Carolina. It would be found that, even leavinjr 
out of the account the four millions of slaves who aro 
not allowed to read or write, the proportion of white 
adults in the Southern States who are totally illite- 
rate is vastly greater than in the Northern. That 
they have no free schools is even a matter of con- 
gratulation among slaveholders; Governor AVi<t> is 
said to have boasted that in the county Mhich ho 
represented, Accojnac, there was neither a ne\vs])aper 
nor a school-house. 

7th. Wo are told that, by receiving cliarital)le or 
jniblic assistance, the poor lose their sense of personal 
independence ; and the poor-house is lield up before us 



274 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

in terrorem; and we are gravely asked if it is not a 
great advantage of slavery that the slave is provided 
for in sickness or old age, and there is no danger of 
his coming to the poor-house. Think of that for an 
argument ! Slavery suggested as a remedy for the 
loss of personal independence, and a way of escaping 
the poor-house ! As if one should be advised to cut 
off his head that he might not chance to take the 
small-pox ! What is there less degrading, or more 
comfortable in the provision made for the sick or 
decrepit slave, than in that which is made for the 
inmates of the poor-house ? And besides, all the poor, 
in sickness or in age, do not come to that last resort; 
while, for the slaves, there is one common doom. 

8th. A great point is made of the immorality of the 
English lower classes, and especially of their gross 
licentiousness, and the great number of illegitimate 
children. But this state of things, though indirectly 
chargeable in part upon the English aristocratic sys- 
tem, is not directly encouraged and enforced by the 
law of the land. It is not a parallel case to the legal 
promiscuous concubinage of four millions of human 
beino-s ; where, moreover, the number of mulattoes 
shows that the licentiousness is not confined to the 
black population. But the " Christian Bishop,'' in 
his zeal to make out a strong case, commits one 
gross blunder. Mr. Kay had said that, in Norfolk 
and Suffolk, instances of bastardy were " fifty-three 
per cent, above the average of England and Wales." 
Looking back to this statement, the Bishop says that 
" Mr. Kay informs us that the cases of bastardy 
among the English peasants amount to fifty -three 
per cent. ;" whereas, by Mr. Kay's statement, they need 
not amount to one per cent. The fact is, that in- 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. '^tO 

stances of bastardy may occur in tlie best regulated 
societies and in the best regulated families, in the 
families of Christian men — of clergymen even — pos- 
bih\y of Bishops. But the real question is, what is 
the remedy? 

9th. The remedy, more or less distinctly proposed by 
the Bishop, for this and all other vices of the labour- 
ing classes, is, the whijiping-post instead of imprison- 
ment, and slavery instead of free labour. I do not 
say that he makes this formal proposition ; but ho 
passes immediately from an exposure of the mise- 
ries and vices of the labouring classes in England to 
a laudation of the beauties and benefits, the Scrip- 
tural and Christian claims, of the whipping-post and 
corporal punishment, as applied to slaves; and to a 
setting forth of the superiority of the 2>hy^^<^"^^ ^^^^^ 
moral condition of the Southern slave over the Eng- 
lish labourer. And he proposes no other remedy — ap- 
parently in perfect harmony with the view of Chan- 
cellor Harper that the proper condition of labourers^ 
is, to be slaves. Perhaps the Hebrew etymology might 
be ajipealed to as confirming this view of the patri- 
archal institution. Think of this, ye "greasy me- 
chanics," ye "clownish boors," ye "mud-sills," of 
the North ; and ponder the destinj" that awaits yon. 

10th. But the true remedy for those evils in Eng- 
land, is, — next to the infiuence of earnest and i)opu- 
lurized Christian instruction, — a reformation of 
t'lie laws and of the social and ])olitico-econoniical 
system of the country. Those evils in England have 
their roots just where the evils ol' slavery have 
theirs, in a lust of dominion and a griHMl for gain, in 
class-legislation, aiming at the wealth olthe few in- 
stead of the welfare of the many, in'the s} stem of 



276 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

caste, in aristocracy. Belgium with a population 
considerably more dense than that of England, and 
certainly without any natural advantages of soil or 
climate, raises twice as much food as is needed for 
the consumption of her population, and her peasantry 
live in simplicity and comfort ; while millions in 
England are starving in filth and wallowing in vice. 
Yet Belgium is not growing rich like England; she 
has not the refined, wealthy, and luxurious aris- 
tocracy of England, living in princely palaces, with 
immense cainjyagnas around them, from which yeo- 
manry and tenantry have been utterly expelled and 
exterminated. In Belgium, on the contrary, the 
lands have been divided up under a legislation which 
is the offspring of the " infidel, atheistic, and detesta- 
ble" doctrines of the French Eevolution. Surely 
the evils under which the mass of the people in Eng- 
land are sinking into utter degradation, are not due 
to the people themselves, nor to any necessity of na- 
ture, bat to a false and pernicious artificial system 
of political and social organization. 

11th. Labour is honourable, and the labourer is to 
be respected. Whatever may have been the system 
of Hebrew servitude, labour was honourable when 
David was called from the sbeepfold to be made the 
King of God's people. Christianity honours labour. 
Her Founder was, in human view, a carpenter; her 
Apostles fishermen and tent-makers; and she has 
tauo-ht that " if any will not work neither shall he 
eat," and that we should all " work with our hands 
at some honest employment, that we may have to 
give to him that needeth." The honour of labour, 
and the rights of the labourer are among the funda- 
mental doctrines of any democratic creed that dc- 



SLAVERY AND E M A N C I T A T I N . 277 

serves the name. The great material end of K\ii;i.sla- 
tion is "the greatest good of the greatest number," 
— an apothegm of Jeremy Bentham, but, in fact, only 
a condensation of the fundamental sentiment of the 
New Testament. But slavery dishonours labour, 
and aristocracy despises it. It is not surprising that 
the aristocracy of England should sympathize with 
the slaveholding oligarchy of the South ; in idea, in 
principle they have much in common ; though to the 
credit of the English aristocracy, it should be ad- 
mitted, little in character. But that the poor, starv- 
ing Lancashire operatives, who suffer most from the 
cotton famine, should look through all the woes en- 
tailed upon them by our war for the Union, and 
steadily side with the North, does show a most won- 
derful power of ideal instinct Green Mountain boys, 
and descendants of the colonists of William Pcnu, 
where shall your sympathies be, in view of such a 
struggle ? 

But what will be the consequence, we are triumph- 
antly asked, of the sudden emancipation of four mil- 
lions of ignorant and helpless slaves? Look at the 
British West Indies, and answer; consider their area 
in comparison but with one of our large States ; con- 
sider the immense preponderance there of the black 
population, in numbers, over the whites ; consider all 
the circumstances; — and it will be evident that the 
emancipation of 800,000 slaves, there, was a far more 
hazardous experiment than the emancipation of four 
millions, among us, ought to be. That the shivehold- 
ers, it' theij ivill, can make it perilous to the blacks and 
disastrous to themselves, there is no doubt. But, in 
that case, lot the blame rest where it belongs. 

But again, it is insisted, — what would the blacks 
21 



278 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

do ? What would become of them ? What social sta- 
tus are they to have ? To all such questions, Justice 
answers, G-ive them a fair chance; and Charity an- 
swers. Lend them a helping hand even, if needful. 
Leave the rest to Providence. The time to trust to 
Providence, to appeal without blasphemy to Provi- 
dence, is, when we have done our duty to the best of 
our power, and yet cannot see through the dangers or 
difficulties that beset us. And for our encouragement, 
let lis look again at the West India experiment. That 
settles the whole question. We see there that, though 
justice was done, the heavens did not fall. 

As to the constitutionality and rightfulness of the 
President's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 
1863, they rest upon a very simple basis. The Con- 
stitution recognizes the property of slaveholders in 
their slaves to be only of the nature of a deht^ — " ser- 
vice or labour due." But it is a well established prin- 
ciple of the law of nations, that a belligerent has a 
right to confiscate and annul all debts due to the 
enemy ; and the Supreme Court of the LTnited States 
have decided the inhabitants of the rebellious States 
to be in the position of public enemies. 

Now, the moment President Lincoln had the legal 
right to emancipate the slaves, it was his boundcn 
duty — his duty as a moral and Christian man — to 
emancipate them. But the objection which, in some 
quarters, has been made to the Proclamation, that it 
appeals to- no high moral and religious considerations, 
is altogether impertinent. For, it does not follow that, 
because the principles of morality and religion re- 
quired the emancipation of the slaves, therefore. Pre- 
sident Lincoln ^Yowld be justified in emancipating them. 
He, therefore, as became him, alleges, and alleges only, 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 270 

the grounds which justified him in issuing his Procla- 
mation ; and boasts no further of his act ; but loaves 
the rest to the blessing of God and the judgment of 
mankind. 

There has been no little doubt and dispute as to the 
ulterior practical and legal effect of the President's 
Proclamation. Here we may distinguish four contin- 
gent cases : 

1st. Suppose we completely suppress the rebellion, 
and reduce the slaveholding States one after another 
to subjection under our military power; then, by the 
very terms of the Proclamation, and the nature of the 
case, slavery is abolished throughout those States, for 
they are brought into our military possession and 
within our military lines ; and, whatever any civil 
court may afterwards decide, any civil court ought to 
decide, that such abolition is an accomplished and irre- 
versible fact. 

2d. Suppose we are defeated ; suppose the rebellion 
triumphs, and we are obliged to acknowledge the in- 
dependence of the Southern Confederacy; then, no- 
body imagines the Proclamation will have any further 
practical or legal effect. The Southern Confederacy 
will then proceed to build upon their " comer-stone," 
to their heart's content. 

3d. Suppose w^e treat and make a compromise with 
one or more of the seceded States, for the sake of t heir 
restoration to the Union ; then, of course, they would 
come, with or without slavery, according to the terms 
of the compromise, and irrespective of the President's 
Proclamation ; but for the Government voluntarily to 
enter into any such compromise as would annul (hat 
Proclamation and reduce again to slavery millions on 
whom the right of freedom had lieen solemnlv con- 



280 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

ferred, would be a proceeding so utterly disgraceful 
and detestable that it is not to be thought of or 
imagined possible. Whose interests are most to be 
reg-arded ; those of four milUons of innocent and loyal 
blacks, natives and lovers of our common country, or 
those of six millions of infuriated rebels and traitors, 
who have thrust the dagger at our very national ex- 
istence, insulted our flag, ravaged our commerce, de- 
solated our fields, stricken down our young men in 
battle, bringing agony and bereavement to hundreds 
of thousands of friends, and butchered or starved our 
soldiers when taken captive ; but towards whom the 
heart of the "Christian Bishop" still yearns as "be- 
longing to the same spiritual fraternity" with him- 
self? If the " Christian Bishop" means by " spiritual 
fraternity" the Protestant Episcopal Church, he may 
not, indeed, be very wide of the mark; for the Southern 
Bishops tell us in their so-called Pastoral : " In our 
case, we go forward with the leading minds of our 
new Eepublic cheering us on by their communion 
with us." " In the Episcopal Church, and in her con- 
gregations, are found a very large proportion of the 
great slaveholders of the country." And is it possible 
that the " Christian Bishop" can have more sympathy 
with those Episcopal rebels, than with the Negro who 
has fallen among thieves, or with the Presbyterian or 
Methodist or Romanist soldier boy who is ready to 
shed his blood in defence of his country? Where are 
the sympathies of the Episcopal Church in Yermont? 
In saying this, I would not stir up or advise any spirit 
of retaliation, or cruelty, or injustice, or even of irre- 
conciliation, or unkindness, towards those who have 
so grievously wronged us. I only ask whether wo 
should sacrifice to the pecuniary interests and aristo- 



SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION. 281 

cratic pride of such men, four millions of loyiil Ame- 
ricans, who either belong to the "same spiritual fra- 
ternity" with ourselves, or, if they do not, it is our 
own or our rebel " brethren's" fault ? 

4. Suppose the Union restored, and the State gov- 
ernments re-established where they have been de- 
stroj'ed; could not the States reduce the negroes to 
slavery again if they saw fit, notwithstanding the 
President's Proclamation ? I answer, yes ; if the 
Constitution remains unamended, I suppose thby 
could. But then, the Proclamation would have had 
its full effect ; the negroes would have been free ; all 
former legal claims of their masters would have been 
arrested and cut off there; and the negroes from be- 
ing free would be reduced to slavery by a positive 
enactment, just as free negroes or free white la- 
bourers may be now, at any time, if a State so pro- 
vide in its Constitution or in its Constitution and 
laws. It is for the true democracy of the country to 
decide whether or not such a result should be guarded, 
against by a seasonable amendment to the Federal 
Constitution. 



24* 



CHAPTEK IX. 

SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 

IT is not a little significant of the character of 
slavery in its bearing upon civilization, that its 
Episcopal eulogist should have been led, in his de- 
fence of it, formally and at large, to recommend the 
restoration of the whipping post as a mode of punish- 
ment, and to defend it as another of the Divine in- 
stitutions side by side with slavery itself. And this 
in the nineteenth century ! It makes me strongly 
disposed to think of a slave overseer instead of a 
Christian Bishop, and of a domestic tyrant instead of 
a father. As to its being " prescribed by the law of 
God,'^ and that sort of argument so often repeated^ 
I have yet to learn that it is any more prescribed by 
the "law," the "wisdom," or the "authority" of 
"Almighty God," than are of the laws of war, already 
cited from Deuteronomy, or the law of the avenger 
of blood, or any other civil enactments of the Mosaic 
code. It is fitting, however, that all men should un- 
derstand, as by a visible sign, the nature of slavery 
civilization ; — it leads to the whipping post, it conse- 
crates the whipping post as a Divine institution, 
recommends it as a factor of the highest civilization. 
Christian civilization should be of a higher type 
than either the Hebrew, the Greek, or the Eoman ; — 
the Hebrew, with its bloody laws of war, its prac- 
(282) 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 283 

ticc of polygamy, its avenger of blood, and its free- 
dom of divorce ; the Greek, with its pugilistic games, 
its Bacchanal orgies, and aphrodisiac license, its 
national piracy, its domestic tyranny and turpitudes, 
its contempt of human life, and the horrible cruelties 
of its Peloponnesian war ; the Roman, with its gigan- 
tic selfishness, its thorough moral corruption, its 
cruelty to the vanquished, its proscriptions and mu- 
tual slaughters, its populace fed at tlie public ex- 
pense, and feted with the blood of gladiatorial shows, 
its character so utterly demoralized and debased, 
that, at last, nothing but the strong hand of a most 
detestable tyranny could save it from complete dis- 
integration. But the chief plague spot of all the 
ancient civilizations was slavery ; and it hung as a 
dead weight upon the progress of Christian civiliza- 
tion, though in a mild and modified form, through 
all the feudal period. 

Slavery ruins tlie character of the master as well 
as of the slave. It accustoms him to acts of unbri- 
dled passion and unbridled lust. It familiari::es him 
from childhood to personal violence, to stripes and 
groans and blood. It habitually appeals to brute 
force. It deals with men not as moral beings, but as 
dumb beasts. The spirit and character engendered 
in such a school arc seen in the duelling, the lynch- 
ing, and the street-fights, the habitual carrying and 
use of deadly weapons, the knife and the pistol, — 
which are characteristic of the slavcholding States. 
It will not abide by an appeal to reason, even wlieii 
it condescends to enter upon the fiehl of argument. 
It always holds ready the idtinia ratio of violence, 
not very far in the back-ground. It communicates 
this spirit to its defenders t'vei-ywhore. This was 



284 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

seen in the riots in England whicli accompanied the 
ao-itation for the abolition of the slave trade ; in the 
threats of personal violence to Wiiberforce, and in 
the assaults of a savage mob upon Clarkson and 
Eoscoe. It has been seen in this country in the in- 
terruption of public meetings for the discussion of 
slavery, in the burning and destruction of public 
halls dedicated to its discussion, in the dragging of 
Garrison through the streets of Boston with a halter 
round his neck, and in the ferocious murder of Love- 
joy at Alton. 

Should the riot in Boston for the rescue of the 
slave. Burns, and one or two attempts at rescue in 
other places, be referred to as an offset ; I answer, 
that these are entirely unlike the others. They were 
the resistance of legal force by illegal force. They 
w^ere still brute force against brute force, and that 
for the rescue of the oppressed ; and yet, being ille- 
gal, they were always frowned upon by the ]^orthern 
community. The others were brute force against 
reason, against ideas, against simple appeals to the 
understanding; and they were universally approved 
by the most aristocratic and chivalrous slaveholders. 

In the Southern States prices have been set, some- 
times in the public newspapers, sometimes by solemn 
legislative enactment, upon the heads of the advo- 
cates of freedom, including Senators and Eepresent- 
atives in Congress, clergymen and merchants, as 
well as anti-slavery editors and lecturers. Litera- 
ture has been subjected to an Index expurgatorins^ 
and the United States mail to the supervision of 
a vigilance committee. No ISTorthern man could 
venture to lisp a word against slavery on Southern 
ground, nor, if it were known or suspected that he 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 285 

entertained anti-slavery sentiments, could lie safely 
show himself in some of the Southern States. " In 
South Carolina a stone-cutter, an Irishman by birth, 
was stripped naked, and then, amidst cries of 
'Brand him!' 'Burn him!' 'Spike him to death!' 
scourged so that blood came at every stroke, while 
tar was poured upon his lacerated flesh."* And this 
is but one among a host of similar atrocities, perpe- 
trated, of course, without any legal process or judi- 
cial investigation. 

It is thus that slavery prepares the way for any 
and every crime and infamy. Its behests override 
every law, whether of Grod or man. There is no 
atrocity or savagery, no fraud or perfidy, no baseness 
or meanness, which slaveholders are not ready to 
commit with a good conscience, if the maintenance 
of the system seems to require it. - It is in this sense, 
rather than in any other, that slavery is the " sum of 
all villainies." It is a characteristic of high civiliza- 
tion to substitute reason for brute force, right for 
might, words for blows, kindness for cruelty, courtesy 
for pride, sympathy for selfishness,'and the law of 
love for the spirit of malignity. Slavery reverses all 
this. Its spirit is directly antagonistic to that of 
civilization. This spirit has not only been expressed 
in acts of individual violence, but has been condensed 
into public law. 

" The ideas which the Slave Power entertained on 
the subject of freedom of the press may be gathered 
from one enactment, which provided that the advo- 
cacy of anti-slavery opinions should be treated as 
felony, and punished with imprisonment and hard 
labour; while its notions of lenity are illustrated by 

* See Sumner's speech, June 4, 18G0. 



28G SOUTHERNSLAVERY. 

its mode of dealing with the offence of facilitating 
the escape of slaves. Against this — of all crimes in 
the ethics of the Slave Power the most heinous — and 
against other modes of attacking slave property, the 
penalty of death was denounced no less than forty- 
eight diiferent times."* 

The effect of slaveholding upon manners and social 
character has been most truly depicted by Jefferson, 
who complained that his native Yirginia was rapidly 
becoming " the Barbary of the Union." " There must 
be," says he, "an unhappy influence on the manners 
of our people, produced by the existence of slavery 
among us. The whole commerce between master 
and sl^ve is a perpetual exercise of the most boister- 
ous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one 
part, and degrading submission on the other; our 

children see this, and learn to imitate it The 

man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners 
and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And 
with what execration should the statesman be loaded 
w^ho, permitting one half the citizens thus to trample 
on the rights of the other, [so it seems Jefferson con- 
sidered that the negroes were citizens and possessed 
of rights,'] transforms them into despots, and then 
into enemies, destroys the morals of the one j)art 
and the amor patrice of the other." 

"With this singularly agrees the judgment of M. 
Tourgueneff, one of the principal leaders in the work 
of Bussian emancipation : " If slavery," says he, 
" degrades the slave, it degrades more the master. 
This is an old adage, and long observations have 
proved to me that this adage is not a paradox. In 
fact, how can that man respect his own dignity, his 

* Cairnes, pp. 117, 118. 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 287 

own rights, who has learned not to respect either the 
rights or the dignity of his fellow-man? What con- 
trol can the moral and religious sentiments have 
over a man who sees himself invested with a power 
80 eminently contrary to morals and religion? The 
continued exercise of an unjust claim, even when it 
is moderated, finishes by corrupting the character of 
the man and spoiling his judgment The pos- 
session of a slave being the result of injustice, the 
relations of the master with the slave cannot be 
otherwise than a succession of injustices. Among 
good masters (and it is agreed to call so those who 
do not abuse their power as much as they might) 
these relations are clothed with forms less repugnant 
than among others; but here the difference stops. 
Who could remain always pure, w^hen, carried away 
by his disposition, excited by his temper, drawn by 
caprice, he can with impunity oppress, insult, humil- 
iate, his fellows ? And let it be carefully remarked 
that intelligence, civilization, do not avail. The 
enlightened man, the civilized man, is none the less 
a man ; that he should not oppress, it is necessary 
that it should be impossible for him to oppress. All 
men cannot, like Louis XIY., throw their stick from 
the window when they feel a desire to strike." 

Said Colonel Mason, a Virginia slaveholder, in the 
Convention of 1787 : " Slavery discourages arts and 
manufactures. The poor despise labour when per- 
formed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of 
wiiites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. 
They ^produce the most pernicious effect on manners. 
Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They 
bring the judgment of Heaven on a country.'' So it seems, 



288 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

by the way, that a man could believe slaveholding a 
sin, and yet continue to hold slaves. 

As to the relation of slaveholding to true chivalry, 
John Locke described it as " So opposite to the ge7i- 
erous temper and courage of our nation, that 'tis 
hardly to be conceived that an Englishmen, much 
LESS A GENTLEMAN, should plead for it." And Adam 
Smith, with whose doctrines of free trade the South- 
erners are so much enamoured, in his work on the 
Moral Sentiments, thus speaks : " There is not a 
negro from the coast of Africa who does not possess 
a degree of magnanimity which the soul of his sordid 
master is too often scarce capable of conceiving. 
Fortune never exerted more cruelly her empire over 
mankind than when she subjected these nations of 
heroes to the refuse of jails of Europe, to wretches 
who possess the virtues neither of the countries 
which they come from, nor of those which they go 
to, and whose levity, brutality, and baseness so justly 
expose them to the contempt of the vanquished." 
One of these philosophical judgments is about two 
centuries old, the other about one. 

"jN'o one who has not been an integral part of a 
slaveholding commimity can have any idea of its abom- 
inations. It is a whited sepulchre, full of dead men's 
bones and all uncleanness." These are the words of 
a Southern lady, the accomplished daughter of Judge 
Grimke, of South Carolina. 

In the words of Professor Cairnes, " Such a system 
can conduct to only one issue, an organized barbarism 
of the most relentless and formidable kind." 

" To establish their scheme of society on such broad 
and firm foundations that they may set at defiance 
the public opinion of free nations, and, in the last 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 289 

resort, resist the combined efforts of their physical 
power, becomes at length the settled purpose and 
clearly conceived design of the whole body. To this 
they devote themselves with the zeal of fanatics, with 
the persistency and secrecy of conspirators." 

The following passage from the Eichmond En- 
quirer, is sufficiently explicit: "Two opposite and 
conflicting forms of society cannot, among civilized 
men, co-exist and endure. The one must give way 
and cease to exist ; the other become universal. If 
free society be unnatural, immoral, unchristian, it 
must fall and give way to slave society, a social sys- 
tem old as the world, universal as man." 

" This slave power constitutes the most formidable 
antagonist to civilized progress which has appeared 
for many centuries, representing a system of society 
at once retrograde and aggressive, a system which, 
containing w^ithin it no germs from which improve- 
ment can spring, gravitates inevitably towards bar- 
barism, while it is impelled by exigencies, inherent in 
its position and circumstances, to a constant exten- 
sion of its territorial domain." 

This system of barbarism has a twofold founda- 
tion — ^the lust of gain and the lust of power. 

" Mankind, in effect, says this theory, has had to 
choose between maintaining slavery and abandoning 
the use of cotton, tobacco, and sugar, and the instincts 
of humanity have succumbed before the more power- 
ful inducements of substantial gain." 

That the system has, for the last half century, gone 
on strengthening itself, instead of growing weaker, is 
quite manifest from the historical facts. 

"At the epoch of the Kevolution, as has been 
already intimated, slavery was regarded by all the 
25 



290 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

eminent men who took part in that movement as 
essentially an evil — an evil which might indeed bo 
palliated as having come down to that generation 
from an earlier and less enlightened age, and which, 
having intwined itself with the institutions of the 
country, required to be delicately dealt with — but 
still an evil, indefensible on moral and religious 
grounds, and which ought not to be permanently en- 
dured. The convention of 1774 unanimously con- 
demned the practice of holding slaves. The conven- 
tion of 1787, while legislating for the continuance of 
slavery, resolved to exclude from the constitution the 
word ' slave,' lest, (as Madison said,) it should bo 
thought that the American nation gave any sanction 
to 'the idea that there could be property in men.' 
Washington, a native of the South, and a slaveholder, 
declared it to be among his first wishes to see slavery 
abolished by law, and in his will provided for the 
emancipation of his slaves. JefPerson, also a native 
of the South, and a slaveholder, framed a plan of abo- 
lition, and declared that, in the presence of slavery 
' he trembled for his country when he reflected that 
God was just ;' that in the event of a rising of slaves, 
tthe Almighty had no attribute which could take 
side with slaveowners in such a contest.' The other 
leading statesmen of that time, Franklin, Hamilton, 
Patrick Henry, the Eandolphs, Monroe, whether 
from the North or from the South, whether agreeing 
or not in their views on the practical mode of dealing 
with the institution, alike concurred in reprobating 
at least the principle of slavery." 

"In Maryland and Yirginia, perhaps also in the 
Carolinas and Georgia, free institutions would long 
since have taken the place of slavery, were it not 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 291 

thtit just as the crisis of the system had arrived, the 
domestic slave trade opened a door of escape from a 
position which had become untenable. The conjunc- 
ture was peculiar, and would, doubtless, by Southern 
theologians, be called providential." 

" The progress of events, far from conducing to 
the gradual mitigation and ultimate extinction of the 
system, has tended distinctly in the opposite direc- 
tion — to the aggravation of its worst evils and the 
consolidation of its strength." 

That but little is to be hoped for the cause of 
emancipation from the spontaneous action of the 
slaveholders themselves, is abundantly evident. 

"By the abolition of slavery (in America) not 
merely would the general prosperity of the inhabit- 
ants be promoted, but by the rise of rent which would 
be the consequence of this measure, there would re- 
sult to slaveholders a special gain — a gain which, it 
may reasonably be thought, would form a liberal 
compensation for any temporary inconvenience they 
might suffer from the change. 

" Considerations so obvious, it is argued, must in 
the end have their effect on the minds of the ruling 
class in the South, and must lead them before long to 
abolish a system which is fraught with such baleful 

effects to the country and to themselves.^^ 

" JS'evertheless it would, I conceive, be infinitely pre- 
carious from this position to infer that slaveholders 
will ever be induced voluntarily to abolish slavery. 
The slaveholders of the South are j)erfectly aware of 
the superior prosperity of the free States : it is with 
them a subject of bitter mortification and envy ; but, 
with the most conclusive evidence before their eyes, 
they persist in attributing this to every cause but the 



292 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

right one." "Whatever be the future ad- 
vantages which may be expected from the change, 
it is vain to deny that the transition from slavery to 
freedom could not be effected without great inconve- 
nience, loss, and, doubtless, in many cases, ruin, to 
the present race of slaveholders. The accumulated 
results of two hundred years of tyranny, cruelty and 
disregard of the first of human rights are not thus 
easily evaded. A sacrifice there would need to be." 

" But, in truth, it is idle to argue this question on 
purely economic grounds. It is not simply as a pro- 
ductive instrument that slavery is valued by its sup- 
porters. It is far rather for its social and political 
results — as the means of upholding a form of society 
in which slaveholders are the sole depositories of so- 
cial prestige and political power, as the ' corner-stone' 
of an edifice of which they are the masters — that the 
system is prized. Abolish slavery and you introduce 
a new order of things, in which the ascendancy of the 
men who now rule at the South would be at an end. 
An immigration of new men would set in rapidly from 
various quarters. The planters and their adherents 
would soon be placed in a helpless minority in their 
old dominions. New interests would take root and 
grow ; new social ideas would germinate ; new politi- 
cal combinations w^ould be formed; and the power 
and hopes of the party which has long swayed the 
politics of the Union, and which now seeks to break 
loose from that Union in order to secure a free career 
for the accomplishment of bolder designs, would be 
gone forever. It is this which constitutes the real 
strength of slavery in the Southern States, and which 
precludes even the momentary admission by the do- 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 293 

minant party there of any proposition which has abo- 
lition for its object."* 

The organization of the so-called Southern Confede- 
racy is a formal attempt to establish and perpetuate 
this system of barbarism in the face of the world. 
This confederation, w^hich is the opprobrium of the 
age, puts itself forward as a model for its imitation, 
and calmly awaits the tardy applause of mankind. 
'' The ideas entertained at the time of the formation 
of the old Constitution," says the Vice-President of 
the Southern Confederacy, "were, that the enslave- 
ment of the African race was in violation of the laws 
of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, 
morally, and politically. Our neio Government is 
founded on exactly opposite ideas; its foundations are 
laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth that 
the I^egro is not equal to the white man; that 
slavery — subordination to the su^^erior race — is his 
natural and normal condition. Thus our Government is 
the first in the history of the world based upon this great 
physical, philosophical, and moral truth. It is upon this 
our social fabric is firmly planted, and I cannot per- 
mit myself to doubt the ultimate success of the full 
recognition of this principle throughout the civil- 
ized and enlightened world This stone which 

was rejected by the first builders ' is become the chief 
stone of the corner' in our new edifice." [Speech of Mr. 
A. H. Stephens, Yice-President of the Southern Con- 
federacy, delivered March, 1861.] Opinion in the 
South has long passed beyond the stage at w^hich 
slavery needs to be defended by argument. The sub- 
ject is now never touched but in a strain such as the 

* Professor Cairnes on the Slave Power. 

25* 



294 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

freedom conquered at Marathon and Plata}a inspired 
in the orators of Athens. It is " the beneficent source 
and wholesome foundation of our civilization;" an 
institution, "moral and civilizing, useful at once to 
blacks and whites." " To suppress slavery would bo 
to throw back civilization two hundred years." " It 
is not a moral evil. It is the Lord's doing, and mar- 
vellous in our eyes It is by divine appoint- 
ment." 

Such has been the encroaching, aggressive, impu- 
dent and insolent bearing of slavery, for many years 
past, with its constant brutal appeal to the bludgeon, 
the knife and the pistol, that it had become more and 
more evidently impossible to live with slaveholders 
on terms of freedom, equality and peace. Either one 
party must succumb to the other, or the two must 
separate. The character of the intercourse between 
the two parties, in and about Congress, may be in- 
ferred from the following, among innumerable, simi- 
lar, instances. 

" On the 15th of February, 1837, E. M. Whitney 
was arraigned before the House of Representatives 
for contempt in refusing to attend, when required, 
before a committee of investigation into the admin- 
istration of the Executive office. His excuse was, 
that he could not attend without exposing himself 
thereby to outrage and violence in the committee- 
room; and on his examination at the bar of the 
House, Mr. Fairfield, a member of the committee, 
afterward a Senator in Congress, and Governor of 
Maine, testified to the actual facts. It ajopears that 
Mr. Peyton, a slave-master from Tennessee, and a 
member of the committee, regarding a certain an- 
swer in writing by Mr. Whitney, to an interrogatory 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 295 

propounded by him as offensive, broke out in tlicso 
words: "Mr. Ciiairman, I wish you to inform this 
witness, that he is not to insult me in his answers ; 
if he does, God damn him, I will take his life on the 
spot!" The witness, rising, claimed the protection 
of the committee ; on which Mr. Peyton exclaimed, 
" God damn you, you shan't speak ; you shan't say 
one word while you are in this room ; if you do, I 
will put you to death!" Mr. Wise, another slave- 
master from Yirginia, Chairman of the Committee, 
and since Governor of Yirginia, t.hen intervened, say- 
ing, " Yes, this damned insolence is insufferable." 
Soon after, Mr. Peyton, observing that the witness 
was looking at him, cried out : " Damn him, his eyes 
are on me ; God damn him, he is looking at me ; he 
shan't do it; damn him, he shan't look at me." 

These things, and much more, disclosed by Mr. 
Fairfield, in reply to interrogatories in the House, 
were confirmed by other witnesses ; and Mr. Wise 
himself, in a speech, made the admission, that he was 
armed with deadly weapons, saying : " I watched 
the motion of that right arm, (of the witness,) the 
elbow of which could be seen by me, and had it 
moved one inch, he had died on the spot. That was 
my determination." 

All this will be found in the thirteenth volume of 
the Congressional Debates^ with the evidence in detail, 
and the discussion thereupon. 

Here is another instance of similar character, which 
did not occur in a committee-room, but during de- 
bate in the Senate chamber. While the compromise 
measures were under discussion, in 1850, on the 
17th of April, Mr. Foote, a slave-master, from Missis- 
sippi, in the course of his remarks, commenced a 



29G SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

personal allusion to Mr. Benton. This was aggra- 
vated by the circumstance that only a few days pre- 
viously he had made this distinguished gentleman 
the mark for most bitter and vindictive personalities. 
Mr. Benton rose at once from his seat, and, with an 
angry countenance, but without weapons of any kind 
in his hand, or, as it appeared afterwards before the 
committee, on his person, advanced in the direction 
of Mr. Foote, when the latter, gliding backward, 
drew from his pocket a five-chambered revolver, fully 
loaded, which he cocked. Meanwhile Mr. Benton, at 
the suggestion of his friends, was already returning 
to his seat, when he perceived the pistoL Excited 
greatly by this deadly menace, he exclaimed : "I am 
not armed. I have no pistols. I disdain to carry 
arms. Stand out of the way, and let the assassin 
fire." Mr. Foote remained standing in the position 
he had taken, with his pistol in his hand, cocked. 
" Soon after," says the report of the committee ap- 
pointed to investigate this occurrence, " both Senators 
resumed their seats, and order was restored." All 
this will be found at length in the twenty-first volume 
of the Congressional Globe. 

Another instance, which belongs to the same class, 
is given by the Hon. William Jay, a writer of singular 
accuracy, and of the truest principle, who has done 
much to illustrate the history of our country. It is 
this : Mr. Dawson, a slave-master from Louisiana, and 
a member of the House of Eepresentatives, went up 
to another member on the floor of the House, and 
addressed to him these words: "If you attempt to 
speak, or rise from your seat, sir, by God, I'll cut your 
throat." 

Mr. Giddings, Representative in Congress from 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 297 

Ohio, adds : " I was afterwards speaking with regard 
to a certain transaction in which negroes were con- 
cerned in Georgia, when Mr. Black, of Georgia, rais- 
ing his bludgeon, and standing in front of my seat, 
said to me : ' If you repeat that language again I 
w411 knock you down/ It Avas a solemn moment for 
me. I had never been knocked down, and having 
some curiosity on that subject, I repeated my lan- 
guage. Then Mr. Dawson, of Louisiana, the same 
who had drawn the bowie knife, placed his hand in 
his pocket and said, with an oath which I will not 
repeat, that he would shoot me, at the same time 
cocking the pistol, so that all around me could hear 
it click." 

Is it possible that such scenes could take place in 
the legislative halls of a civilized country ? The 
whole country has, most unjustly, been compelled to 
bear the infamy of this barbarism. 

But the barbarism does not end here. The vener- 
able John Quincy Adams, certainly one of the most 
distinguished statesmen of the country, who had 
been President of the United States, and was, at the 
time now referred to, a member of the House of Ee- 
presentatives, insisted perseveringly upon the popular 
right of petition, which was as pertinaciously refused 
by the slaveholders' majority in the House. On one 
occasion, he happened to present a petition, which, 
unknown to himself, contained a request for the dis- 
solution of the Union. Immediately he was assailed 
by a most overwhelming storm of abuse, and threat- 
ened with instant expulsion from the House, without 
even an opportunity of speaking in his own defence. 
And it is remarkable that this onslaught, in professed 
defence of the sacredness of the Union, was led 



298 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

by the same Henry A. Wise, who engineered Virginia 
into secession, and has since been a General in the 
Confederate service. His hypocrisy still survives 
among many, who talk loudly of their attachment to 
the Union and the Constitution, while, at heart, tlioy 
sympathize with rebellion and treason. The Charles- 
ton Mercury^ which always speaks the true voice of 
slavery — not content with the quiet expulsion of the 
venerable patriot — said in 1837 : " Public opinion at 
the South would now, we are sure, justify an imme- 
diate resort to force by the Southern delegation, even 
on the floor of Congress^ were they forthwith to seize 
and drag from the Hall, any man who dared to insult 
them, as that eccentric old show-man, John Quincy 
Adams, has dared to do." 

This advice subsequently bore fruit. On the 22d 
of May, 1856, just after the adjournment of the Se- 
nate, while Mr. Charles Sumner, a Senator from 
Massachusetts, still remained in his seat in the 
Senate chamber, engaged pen in hand, Preston S. 
Brooks, a member of the House of Eepresentatives 
from South Carolina, accompanied with armed assist- 
ants, approached his desk unobserved, and abruptly 
addressed him. Before he had time to utter a single 
word in reply, he received a stunning blow upon the 
head from a heavy cane or bludgeon in the hands of 
Brooks, which made him blind and almost uncon- 
scious. Endeavouring, however, to protect himself, 
in rising from his chair his desk was overthrown ; and 
while in that condition he was beaten upon the head 
by repeated blows, until he sunk upon the floor of 
the Senate exhausted, unconscious, and covered with 
his own blood. The injuries thus inflicted were of so 
murderous a character that Senator Sumner narrowly 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 299 

escaped with his life ; and scarcely recovered from 
the consequences after several years of lingering 
suffering. For this act Brooks was not expelled from 
the House of Eepresentatives ; but, considering him- 
self censured by the large vote in favour of his ex- 
pulsion, he resigned his seat. He was immediately 
returned to it by the unanimous vote of his South Carolina 
constituents ; his course was loudly applauded by the 
Southern Press, so far as I know without a dissent- 
ing voice ; and he was presented with innumerable 
gold-headed canes and other mementoes in commen- 
dation and commemoration of his chivalrous exploit. 
Now, there may be rowdies and assassins anywhere; 
but what must be the barbarism of a people where 
such an act could command universal approbation 
and applause? The only excuse alleged for the act 
w^as, that the Senator had used insulting language 
towards South Carolina or some of her citizens. 
Whether his language had been insulting or not is a 
question of taste and opinion. I think it was not. 
But suppose it had been, was that the way to meet 
it, in a civilized community ? The same Senator, in 
1860, made a speech to which I have above referred, 
which contained no offensive personalities, and the 
most insulting part of w^hich were the facts which it 
coolly and remorselessly stated. To this speech 
Senator Chesnut, of South Carolina, replied, alleging 
as an excuse in behalf of himself and his fellow Se- 
nators for not having arrested Mr. Sumner's speech 
by a renewed personal assault : " We are not inclined 
again to send forth the recijnent 0/ punishment, howling 
through the ivorld, yelping fresh cries of slander and 
malice." 

If such is the character of the very 61ite of the 



300 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Southern ehivaliy, how is it possible for civilized men 
to live with them in meek submission without utter 
degradation ? 

But this is not all. The " Christian Bishop" closes 
his whole volume with a final thrust at the horrible 
barbarism of Africa. He cites from Captain Canot 
" a graphic statement of the atrocities committed by 
the native Africans." He fails to observe, however, 
one thing which leaks out of the Captain's account, 
and which entirely nullifies his inference from the 
whole, viz. : that it is only slavery and the slave trade 
that have tended to raise the Africans from their sav- 
age state. " My mercantile adventure/' the Captain 
says, " was unhappily destined to be the apple of dis- 
cord between the two cousins. The establishment of 
80 important an institution as a slave factory within 
the jurisdiction of the younger savage gave umbrage 
to the elder." And then he proceeds to depict the 
horrible atrocities which grew out of the quarrel of 
the kinsmen, thus confirming the statements of Pres- 
ident Buchanan and Dr. Livingstone, that the Euro- 
pean slave trade has been the principal cause of the 
disgusting barbarism of Africa. But off against the 
Bishop's picture I propose to set another picture from 
another quarter, drawn by at least as faithful and 
trustworthy an artist as the slave-trading Captain 
Canot. 

The following anecdote is told by Mr. Thomas K. 
Gladstone, an Englishman who visited Kansas during 
the time of the disturbances, in his work entitled 
Kansas; or, Squatter Life and Border Warfare in the 
Far West : " Individual instances of barbarity con- 
tinued to occur almost daily. In one instance a man 
belono-ina: to General Atchison's camn made a bet of 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 301 

six dollars against a pair of boots that he would go 
and return with an Abolitionist's scalp within two 
hours. He went forth on horseback. Before he had 
gone two miles from Leavenworth on the road to 
Lawrence, he met a Mr. Hops, driving a buggy. Mr. 
Hops was a gentleman of high respectability, who 
had come home with his wife, a few days previously, 
to join her brother, the Eev. Mr. Nute of Boston, 
who had for some time been laboring as a minister 
in Lawrence. The ruffian asked Mr. Hops where he 
came from. He replied he was last from Lawrence. 
Enough! The ruffian drew his revolver and shot 
him through the head ! As the body fell from the 
chaise, he dismounted, took his knife, scalped his vic- 
tim, and then returned to Leavenworth, where, having 
won his boots, he paraded the streets with the bleed- 
ing scalp of the murdered man stuck upon a pole. 
This was on the 19th of August. Eight days later, 
when the widow, who had been left at Lawrence 
sick, was brought down by the Eev. Mr. Nute, in the 
hope of recovering the body of her murdered hus- 
band, the whole party, consisting of about twenty 
persons in five wagons, was seized, robbed of all they 
had, and placed in confinement. One was shot the 
next day for attempting to escape. The widow and 
one or two others were allowed to depart by steamer, 
but penniless. A German incautiously condemning 
the outrage was shot, and another saved his life only 
by precipitate flight." 

This is but an illustration of the atrocities which 
were daily committed, and in every direction. 

There remains one chapter more to fill up the 
measure of the evidence of slaveholding barbarism. 
It is the savage acts of the rebels in the present war, 
26 



302 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

I shiiU not dwell upon the using of Yankee skulls for 
drinkinsc-bowls, and Yankee bones for the manufac- 
ture of ten-pins and trinkets and presents to sweet- 
hearts, and other things of a similar character, befit- 
ting only cannibals, which, though sufficiently authen- 
ticated by the investigations of a Congressional 
committee, may, after all, be acts only of individual 
savagery. I shall call attention at once to the scenes 
of Fort Pillow and of the prisons at Eichmond. 
My citations are taken from a report of a joint com- 
mittee of the Senate and House of Eepresentatives 
of the United States, made, after careful personal 
investigation, in May last. 

" It will appear from the testimony taken, that the 
atrocities committed at Fort Pillow were not the 
result of passions excited by the heat of conflict, but 
were the results of a policy deliberately decided upon 
and unhesitatingly announced. . . . The declarations 
of Forrest and his officers, both before and after the 
capture of Fort Pillow, as testified to by such of our 
men as have escaped after being taken by him ; the 
threats contained in the various demands for surren- 
der made at Paducah, Columbus, and other places; 
the renewal of the massacre the morning after the 
capture of Fort Pillow ; the statements made by the 
rebel officers to the officers of our gunboats, who 
received the few survivors at Fort Pillow — all this 
proves most conclusively the policy which they have 
determined to adopt;" that is, with respect to our 
coloured troops and their officers. 

" Then followed a scene of cruelty and murder, 
without a parallel in civilized warfare, which needed 
but the tomahawk and scalping-knife to exceed the 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. SCO 

worst atrocities ever committed by savages. The 
rebels commenced an indiscriminate slaiigUter, spar- 
ing neither age nor sex, white or black, soldier or 
civilian. The officers and men seemed to vie with 
each other in the devilish work ; men, women, and 
even children, wherever found, were deliberately shot 
down, beaten and even hacked with sabres; some 
of the children, not more than ten years old, were 
forced to stand up and face their murderers while 
being shot; the sick and the wounded were butchered 
without mercy, the rebels were entering the hospital 
building and dragging them out to be shot, or killing 
them as they lay there unable to offer the least re- 
sistance. All over the hillside the work of murder 
was going on. Numbers of our men were collected 
together in lines or groups and deliberately shot. 
Some were shot while in the river, while others on 
the bank were shot and their bodies kicked into the 
water; many of them still living but unable to make 
any exertions to save themselves from drowning. 
Some of the rebels stood upon the top of the hill or 
but a short a distance down its side, and called to our 
soldiers to come up to them, and, as they approached, 
shot them down in cold blood ; if their guns or pistols 
missed fire, forcing them to stand there until they 
were again prepared to fire. All around v^ere heard 
cries of 'No quarter!' 'No quarter!' 'Kill the 
damned Niggers !' ' Shoot them down !' All who 
asked for mercy were answered by the most cruel 
taunts and sneers. Some were spared for a time, 
only to be murdered under circumstances of greater 
cruelty. No cruelty which the most fiendish malig- 
nity could devise was omitted by these murderers. 
One white soldier who was wounded in one leo- 

Of 



304 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

SO as to be unable to walk, was made to stand up 
while his tormentors shot him ; others who were 
wounded and unable to stand, were held up and again 
shot. One negro who had been ordered by a rebel 
officer to hold his horse was killed by him when he 
remounted ; another, a mere child, whom an officer 
had taken up behind him on his horse, was seen by 
Chalmers, who at once ordered the officer to put him 
down and shoot him, which was done. The huts 
and tents, in which many of the wounded had sought 
shelter, were set on fire, both that night and the next 
morning, while the wounded were still in them — 
those only escaping who were able to get themselves 
out, or who could prevail on others less injured than 
themselves to help them out; and even some of those 
thus seeking to escape the flames, were met by these 
ruffians and brutally shot down, or had their brains 
beaten out. One man w^as deliberately fastened down 
to the floor of a tent, face upwards, by means of nails 
driven through his clothing and into the boards 
under him, so that he could not possibly escape, and 
then the tent set on fire ; another was nailed to the 
side of a building outside of the Fort, and then the 
building set on fire and burned. The charred re- 
mains of five or six bodies were afterwards found, all 
but one so much disfigured and consumed by the 
flames that they could not be identified, and the iden- 
tification of that one is not absolutely certain, although 
there can hardly be a doubt that it was the body of 
Lieutenant Akerstrom, Quartermaster of the Thir- 
teenth Tennessee Cavalry, and a native Tennessean ; 
several witnesses who saw the remains, and who 
were personally acquainted with him while living, 



SLAVERY AND CIVILIZATION. 6U5 

have testified that it is their firm belief that it was 
his body that was thus treated 

"These deeds of murder and cruelty ceased when 
night came on, only to be renewed the next morning, 
when the demons carefully sought among the dead 
lying about in all directions for any of the wounded 
yet alive, and those they found were deliberately 
shot I" 

Such was the Fort Pillow massacre. As to the 
treatment of our prisoners of war in and about Eich- 
mond, the Committee sa}'^ : 

" The evidence proves, beyond all manner of doubt, 
a determination on the part of the rebel authorities, 
deliberately and persistently practiced for a long 
time past, to subject those of our soldiers, who have 
been so unfortunate as to fall into their hands, to a 
system of treatment which has resulted in reducing 
many of those who have survived and been permitted 
to return to us, to a condition both physically and 
mentally, which no language we can use can ade- 
quately describe They present literally the 

appearance of living skeletons, many of them being 
nothing but skin and bone ; some of them are maimed 
for life, having been frozen while exposed to the in- 
clemency of the winter season, being compelled to lie 

on the bare ground without tents or blankets 

In respect to the food furnished to our men by the 
rebel authorities, the testimony proves that the ration 
of each man was totally in sufficient in quantity to 
preserve the health of a child, even had it been of 
proper quality, which it was not. It consisted usually 
at the most of two small pieces of corn bread, made 
in many instances, as the witnesses state, of corn and 
cobs ground together, and badly prepared and cooked; 
26* 



300 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

of, at times, about two ounces of meat, usually of 
poor quality, and unfit to be eaten, and occasionally 
a few black worm-eaten beans, or something of that 
kind. Many of our men were compelled to sell to 
their guards, and others, for what price they could 
get, such clothing and blankets as they were per- 
mitted to receive of that forwarded for their use by 
our government, in order to obtain additional food 
sufficient to sustain life," — and thus to avoid perish- 
ing from hunger, exposing themselves to perishing 
from cold. 

Such is the boasted chivalry of the South, as ex- 
hibiting itself at the very centre of their highest 
civilization — at Eichmond. And yet these monsters 
are men like ourselves. The demon that possesses 
them is Slavery. Slavery and true civilization are 
imcompatible. The conflict is, indeed, " irrepressi- 
ble." If we are hereafter to live in peace with such 
men, it can only be on condition, either of the abolition 
of slavery, or of the abolition of freedom ! 



CHAPTEE X. 

SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 

••AS to rebellion^ I have always been opposed to 
-LL everything which deserves the name, in the 
family, in the Church, in the State, or in any other 
relation of society. The Apostles commanded obedi- 
ence, not only to the slave, but to the child, to the 
wife, and to every subject of earthly government." 
Such is the "Christian Bishop's" profession of loyalty. 
Its value and significance, under present circum- 
stances, may be inferred from the fact, that he q:k- 
■pressly justified the secession of the Southern States, 
in a letter of 1861, which he authorized to be pub- 
lished " in its original form" in 1863, having then 
found "no reason for changing his opinion;" that 
he charges professed philanthropists, not Southern 
slaveholders, with being the cause of the present 
war ; and adds of the " ultra-abolitionists," that " not 
merely ' confusion and disturbance,' but the sacrifice 
of half a million of valuable lives, and the ravages 
of the most awful desolation, and a multitude of torn 
and bleeding hearts, and the kindling of bitter hatred 
and deadly animosity between those who were once 
friends and brethren, have marked the results of 
their insane determination." Indeed, from the whole 
tone of the Bishop's book it' would seem abundantly 
evident that the true rebels, in this case, are, in his 

(307) 



308 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

view, no other than the abolitionists and the loyal 
people of the North ; and that they are responsible 
before God for all the consequences. Whether this 
be or be not his own personal position is a matter of 
no moment. I will neither impugn his loyalty nor 
be responsible for it. But doctrines which logically 
lead to such conclusions, one may surely be permitted 
to note, refute, and condemn. 

But, it is said, if there had been no abolitionists,* 
there would have been no rebellion, the country 
would now be in profound peace; therefore aboli- 
tionists are manifestly responsible for this fratricidal 
war and all its results. I answer, if there had been 
no slavery there would have been no abolitionists ; 
therefore the "insane determination" of the slave- 
holders to continue and perpetuate slavery is respon- 
sible for the existence of the abolitionists, and conse- 
quently for " this fratricidal war and all its results." 

But, again, it is said^ the slaveholders had a legal 
right to hold their slaves, solemnly guaranteed to them 
by the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the 
land. Granted, — and the abolitionists also had a legal 
right freely to express and publish their opinions, 
solemnly guaranteed to them by the Constitution, in 
the following authentic words : "Congress shall make 

* As to " ultra-abolitionists," if I understand what is meant by 
the term, President Lincoln was not an ''ultra-abolitionist" at 
the time of his election, nor were the doctrines of the Republican 
party "ultra-abolitionist." If the contrary is maintained, it 
would remain to inquire accurately, what is the distinction be- 
tween "abolitionist" and "ultra-abolitionist?" Perhaps, it 
would turn out to be just this,— that the "Christian Bishop" is 
the type of a bond fide "abolitionist," and all who go beyond him 
are " ultra-abolitionists ? " 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 309 

no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the 
press." 

But, yet again, it is rejoined; the institution of 
slavery is of so peculiar and delicate a character that 
it cannot be maintained — the masters cannot be safe 
with their property or their lives — if it is allowed to 
be drawn into discussion, and the opinions of, aboli- 
tionists are permitted freely to circulate. It may be 
so, I reply. But so much the worse for slavery. It 
only shows that slavery is such a peculiar institution 
that it cannot co-exist with the principles of free gov- 
ernment ; it is inconsistent ivith the provisions of the Fede- 
ral Constitution. For, if the Constitution had intended 
to guarantee slavery in such sense as to allow its free dis- 
cussion to be prohibited, an exception would have been 
made in its favour, in the clause forbidding the abridg- 
ment of the freedom of speech or of the press. No 
such exception is made. Many, and probably all, of 
the framers of the Constitution believed slavery to be 
wrong; and some of them did not hesitate, in the 
Constitutional Convention itself, to say so. Surely it 
can be no more a "crime," under the Constitution, for 
me " to write about slavery, to preach about slavery, 
to talk about slavery, to think about slavery," than 
it was for Benjamin Franklin, one of the framers of 
that Constitution, and, at the same time, President of 
an anti-slaver}^ society, to present the following me- 
morial to Congress in 1789 : 

" From a persuasion that equal liberty was origin- 
ally the portion, and is still the birthright of all men, 
and influenced by the strong ties of humanity and the 
principles of their institutions, your memorialists con- 
ceive themselves bound to use all justifiable endea- 



810 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

vours to loosen the bands of slavery and promote a 
general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. 

" Under these impressions they earnestly entreat 
your serious attention to the subject of slavery; that 
you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of 
liberty to those unhappy men who alone, in this land 
of freedom, are degraded into perpetual bondage, and 
who, amid the general joy of surrounding freedom, 
are groaning in servile subjection; that you will de- 
vise means for removing this inconsistency from the 
character of the American people, that you will pro- 
mote mercy and justice towards this oppressed race ; 
that you will step to the very verge of the power 
vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic* 
in the persons of our fellow men." 

Such were the words of Benjamin Franklin. Did 
he '• tear to shreds the Constitution" he had helped to 
make ? Was he an "ultra-abolitionist?" Alas, ^^tem- 
pora mutantur P' And now grave judges tell us that 
such language is " criminal,^^ Christian bishops refer it 
to an "atheistic and infidel" origin,-)- and clergymen, 
in solemn conventions, even venture to pronounce its 
reproduction " blasphemous." 

* It is to be observed that the control and regulation of the 
inter-Staie slave trade, as of all other domestic commerce, are 
clearly within the constitutional powers of Congress; — though 
nev6r exercised. Had Congress, in accordance with the petition 
of Franklin, from the first, stepped to the verge of its powers on 
this head, slavery would have died long ago. 

f When the Convention of 1787 had anxiously deliberated and 
laboured for several days without success or progress, ditficulties 
seeming but to increase and darkness to thicken around them, 
and some already preparing to return home in despair, then it 
was Franklin who rose, and, " Let us seek the guidance and 
blessing of God," he said; "unaided by the light of a higher 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 311 

Nothing can be plainer than, as 1 have said, that 
if slavery is inconsistent with free speech, it is incon- 
Bistent with the Constitution of the United States. 
Here the case ends, and slavery goes to the bottom. 
The very allegation that abolitionism is the cause of 
the war implies and proves that slavery is the cause 
of the war. It is its material cause; but the true and 
proper cause of the war is the slaveholders them- 
selves rising in rebellion against the Constitution, the 
Grovernment, the flag, the very existence of their 
country.* 

wisJoni than oui" own, we shall toil and perjilex ourselves to no 
good purpose." AVould that this truly Christian counsel had 
been followed. The Convention might then have been led to the 
adoption of such provisions as would have saved us from this 
rebellion and from the horrors of civil war. 

* But it is said the Abolitionists at least provoked the rebellion. 
Harry is mercilessly beating his dog. His brother Tom, hearing 
the moans of the creature, expostulates with Harry. Still the 
beating goes on. At length says Tom: "It is wrong, it is out- 
rageous, it is positively wicked, to beat that dog so." " If you 
don't hold your insolent tongue," says Harry, " I will knock you 
down." Tom, somewhat moved, repeats his statement. There- 
upon Harry, bludgeon in hand, falls upon him. Tom defends 
himself as best he may, and a fight ensues. In the midst of it 
the father appears, and finds his sons with clothes torn, faces 
disfigured, and rolling in each other's blood. Having learned 
the history of the case, he thus decides : " Tom, you should have 
known better than to speak, when Harry told you to hold your 
tongue, and especially when you knew that, if you spoke, it 
would certainly lead to this scene of violence. You deserve all 
you have suffered, and are responsible for all the suffering you 
have inflicted upon Harry, and ought to be punished for it. Go 
away, and learn to keep the peace." " Here Harry, my bravo 
boy, let me kiss you. Never mind." A sage and highly Episco- 
pal decision ! Indeed, some one who stood near, and heard it, 
very innocently inquired whether the father were not a Bishop. 

When it is said that the Abolitiunists provoked the slaveholders, 



312 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Xow this rebellion is either justifiable or unjustifi- 
able. If justifiable, the country is bound to submit 
to its demands and die decently. If unjustifiable, then 
are the rebels, and they alone, guilty of all the bloodshed 
and vmnifold icoes entailed upon both South and KoHh 
by this unnatural and deplorable war. Other j^arties 
may doubtless be guilty of particular acts of atrocity 
or violence, but not so as to diminish aught from the 
guilt of the original conspirators and leaders of the 
rebellion ; rather is their guilt thereby only accumu- 
lated. Others may be guilty of a part; but they, 
and they alone^ are guilty of the whole. 

Is, then, the rebellion justifiable ? 

In the first place, it is no '-unhappy strife between 
two sections of our common country," as, in their 
impartial loyalty, the Philadelphia politicians denom- 
inate it. It is a true and proper rebellion. The 
country is on one side, the rebels are on the other. 
The rebela began by firing upon our flag, by insult- 
ing and trampling the very emblem of our country^s 
nationality in the dust. They openly separated from 
the country, and levied war against it. Their avowed 
purpose is and has been to destroy our national 
Union and our national existence. And is this to be 
softly called by loyal men '-an unhappy strife between 
two sections?" What then is loyalty, and what is 
rebellion ? 

To an unsophisticated moral judgment it would 
seem plain that, in case of a rebelKon, there are but 
two sides to the question; there is no middle, no 

it seems to be forgotten that it is at least equally true that the 
slaveholders provoked the Abolitionists. And here, again, the 
slaveholders are at the bottom of the mischief. 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 313 

neutral ground. He that is not with his country is 
against her; and the constitutional government for 
the time being represents his country, is the organ of 
his country — the only organ his country has ; if the 
government is demolished, demolished by the rebel- 
lion, his country is demolished. If a murderer were 
in the act of striking down his victim, who should be 
defending himself to the best of his ability ; and a by- 
stander should look quietly on without lifting a finger 
or calling for help, and talk about "the unhappy con. 
test between the two parties," would he not be an 
accessory to the crime ? 

But even rebellion may sometimes be justifiable. 
Is it the case with this ? Had the rebels exhausted 
all possible constitutional means of righting their 
wrongs ? To call secession and rebellion itself a co?i- 
stitutional means is too grossly absurd to deserve a 
moment's consideration. Had they remonstrated, had 
they supplicated, had they prostrated themselves 
before the Grovernmcnt, imploring a redress of their 
grievances? In the first place, they had no griev- 
ances to complain of against the Grovernment. In 
the second place, if they had had mijffJiej/^ remon- 
strate?' fcy supplicate? they petition? Xo! The 
Government was their *' creature." " They knew 
their rights and dared defend them." Such have been 
their uniform language and bearing. In fact, to show 
that had they had any grievances on the part of the 
Grovernment to complain of, they had not exhausted 
all constitutional means of redress, it is sufficient to 
say that, at the very moment of their secession, they 
with the help of their political allies, had entire con- 
trol of the Supreme Court of the United States, and 
of both Houses of Congress, with a large majority in 
27 



314 SOUTHERNSL AVERY. 

the Senate, thus effectually checking and controlling 
the Executive. But no words can better set forth 
the utter groundlessness and moral indefensibility of 
the rebellion, than a speech of Alexander H. Stej^hens, 
now Yice-President of the rebel Confederacy, deliv- 
ered before the Georgia secession convention in Jan- 
uary, 1861. 

" This step (of secession) once taken can never be 
recalled; and all the baleful and withering conse- 
quences that must follow will rest on the convention 
for all coming time. When we and our posterity 
shall see our lovely South desolated by the demon 
of war, which this act of yours loill inevitably invite and 
call forth, when our green fields of waving harvest 
shall be trodden down by the murderous soldiery and 
fiery car of war sweeping over our land, our temples 
of justice laid in ashes, all the horrors and desola- 
tions of war u2:)on us, who hut this convention will he 
held responsible for it? and who but him who shall 
have given his vote for this unwise and illtimed mea- 
sure, as I honestly think and believe, shall he held to 
strict account for this suicidal act by the present genera- 
tion, and probably cursed and execrated by posterity for 
all coming time, for the wide and desolating ruin that 
will inevitably follow this act you now j^ropose to 

perpetrate. Pause, 1 entreat you What right 

has the North assailed ? What interest of the South 
has been invaded? What justice has been denied, 
and what claim founded in justice and right has been 
withheld ? Can either of you to-day name one gov- 
ernmental act of wrong, deliberately and purposely 
done by the Government at Washington, of which 
the South has a right to complain ? I challenge the 
answer 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 815 

'' "We have always had the control of the General 
Government, and can yet if we remain in it, and are 
as united as we have ever been. We have had a 
majority of the Presidents chosen from the South, as 
well as the control and management of most of those 
chosen from the North. We have had sixty years 
of Southern Presidents to their twenty-four, thus 
controlling the Executive Department. So of the 
Judges of the Supreme Court, we have had eighteen 
from the South, and but eleven from the North; 
although nearly four-fifths of the judicial business 
has arisen in the free States, yet a majority of the 
court has always been from the South. This we have 
required, so as to guard against any interpretation of 
the Constitution unfavourable to us. In like manner 
we have been equally watchful to guard our interests 
in the legislative branch of Government. In choosing 
the presiding j^residents (^2^ro tern.) of the Senate, we 
have had twenty-four to their eleven. Speakers of 
the House, we have had twenty-three and they 
twelve. While the majority of the representatives, 
from their greater population, have always been from 
the North, yet we have so generally secured the 
Speaker, because he, to a greater extent, shapes and 

controls the legislation of the country 

Attorney-generals, we have had fourteen, while the 
North have had but five. Foreign ministers, we 

have had eighty-six, and they but fifty-four 

We have had the principal embassies, so as to se- 
cure the world market for our cotton, tobacco, and 
sugar, on the best possible terms. We have had a 
vast majority of the higher offices of both army and 
navy, while a large proportion of the soldiers and 
sailors were drawn from the North. Equally so of 



31G SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

clerks, auditors, and comj)trollers, filling the Execu- 
tive departments. The records show for the last 
fifty years that of three thousand thus employed, we 
have had more than two-thirds of the same, while we 
have but one-third of the white population of the 

Republic A fraction over three-fourths of the 

revenue collected for the suj^port of the Government 
has uniformly been raised from the iNorth. Pause 
now while you can, gentlemen, and contemplate care- 
fully and candidly these important items 

" For you to attemj^t to overthrow such a Govern- 
ment as this, under which we have lived for more 
than three quarters of a century, in which we have 
gained our wealth, our standing as a nation, our do- 
mestic safety, while the elements of peril are around 
us, with peace and tranquillity accompanied with 
unbounded prosperity, and rights unassailed, is the 
height of madness, folly, and wickedness, to which I 
can neither lend my sanction nor my vote.'' 

ISTevertheless Georgia seceded, the Southern Con- 
federacy was formed, and Alexander II. Stephens is 
said to be its Yice President. " Out of thine own 
mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant." 

But though the Southern rebellion is unjustifiable, 
it must have had some pretended grounds : What 
were they ? "What did it demand ? 

Its demands were four ; and they were all con- 
nected with slavery :* 

1st. The unlimited extension of slavery j 

* Alexander H. Stephens said, at Savannah, in a public speech, 
a few days after his election: "Negro slavery was the imme- 
diate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in 
his forecast, had anticipated this as the rock upon which the old 
Union would split." 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 31T 

2d. The silencing of abolitionists throughout the 
United States ; 

8d. The surrender of the freedom of elections ; 

4th. 'No protection of the free blacks against the 
hunters of alleged fugitive slaves. 

1st. As to the unlimited extension of slavery it was 
demanded, in the first place, with respect to the Ter- 
ritories — the common property of the United States. 
But it was demanded in the Territories on grounds 
which are equally applicable to the States themselves. 
For the grounds were, that all the States are equal, 
and that if the citizens of one State, Pennsylvania, 
for example, may migrate with their property into 
the common Territories, so may the citizens of an- 
other State, Yirginia, for example, migrate into them 
with their property ; but in Yirginia slaves are pro- 
perty ; therefore slavery cannot be prohibited in the 
Territories. ISTow it is manifest that this reasoning 
is just as applicable to the several States as to the 
Territories ; for if a Pennsylvanian may remove into 
Virginia and carry all his movable property with 
him, then, as the rights of States are equal, a Vir- 
ginian may remove into Pennsylvania and carry his 
slaves with him. There can be no reasonable doubt 
that this doctrine was intended ultimately to have 
this wider application. The first step was to be taken 
with the Territories, and when that was firmly se- 
cured, the other would follow of course. The Dred 
Scott decision clearly opened the way to this conclu- 
sion, and almost forestalled it.* No present assur- 

* Some people affect to speak of the Supreme Court of the 

United States as if it were not only suprevie but infallible. I 

cheerfully submit to its supremacy, but I deny its infallibility. 

Its mandates are to be obeyed, but its dicta, its doctrines, are fiiir 

27* 



318 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

ances to the contrary, no solemn compromises, could 
have protected us from the inevitable result. We 
should simply have been told, at the proper time, 
that such compromises, like that of Missouri, were 
unconstitutional ! 

Eut, in fact, this claim of the slaveholders is utterly 
untenable, as a constitutional claim, even in regard to 
the Territories. According to the constitution, Con- 
gress has the exclusive right of legislation over the 
Territories. The States have nothing at all to do 
with it — have no right whatever, as States, to claim 
or to act in the premises. And the Supreme Court 
has decided (McCulloch vs. State of Maryland) that 
"the Grovernment of the Union, though limited in its 
power, is supreme within its sphere of action.'' But 
are not the States equal ? That is a theoretical doc- 
trine, and, in a proper sense, is admitted to be true ; 
but, after all, it is not an article of the Constitution, and, 
in point of fact, is liable to some modifications. The 
States are equal in the Senate, but not in the House ; 
and, if slaves are property, — as is claimed in this case, 

subjects of respectful criticism. Now, it is of small moment for 
me to say, that I agree with Judge Curtis, and hold the Dred 
Scott decision to have been wrong, iniquitously wrong,— a de- 
cision which must eventually be reversed,— yet, had the execu- 
tion of the mandate of the court in that case been resisted, I 
should have been ready, as a good citizen, to render all the assist- 
ance required in support of the law. It seems to have been tho 
clear opinion of Mr. A. H. Stephens, in his speech before cited, 
that a Supreme Court may be packed— packed with Southern 
partizans— packed so as to secure the interests of slavery. And 
while the mandates of the Supreme Court are the supreme law of 
the land, its dicta, its dogmas, pronounced at one time, may be 
reversed at another. Every court would feel at liberty to correct 
the errors of its predecessors. 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 319 

— ^then some States have a iwoioerty representation in 
Congress, while others are not allowed the privilege. 
And, let the States be as equal as you please, the 
business of Congress is, not to act upon States or sec- 
tions, but upon individuals ; not to legislate for States 
or se-ctions, but for the people, for the public good, 
for "the general welfare;" — I say, restricting itself 
always within its own sphere, it is, within that 
sphere, to legislate for the " general welfare ;" for, 
this is precisely what the Constitution, in terms, re- 
quires. Now even if it were consistent with the 
general welfare, as it would not always be, it is, in 
many cases, simply impossible for Congress so to 
frame its laws that each State shall have exactly its 
proportion of burden or its proportion of benefit. 
As President Jackson said to the South Carolina 
nullifiers, no tariff can be so adjusted as to press with 
precisely proportional weight upon each individual 
State. The same is true of any system of taxation, 
even, in some respects, of "direct taxtion." Con- 
gress is constitutionally bound to legislate with an 
honest and impartial view to the general welfare. 
If, therefore, in the conscientious judgment of Con- 
gress, the general welfare requires the introduction 
of slavery into the Territories, Congress is constitu- 
tionally bound to allow its introduction. But if, on 
the other hand, in the conscientious judgment of 
Congress, the general welfare — the welfare of the 
country as a whole, and particularly of the Territo- 
ries themselves in the long run* — for in their future 

* Even Henry Clay, as late as the year 1850, in answer to Jef- 
ferson Davis, then a Senator from Mississippi, used the following 
language on the floor of the United States Senate : 

"I am extremely sorry to hear the Senator from Mississippi 



320 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

welfare, the welfare of the whole country is most 
deeply involved — requires that slaver}^ should be 
prohibited in the Territories; — then is Congress con- 
stitutionally and solemnly bound to prohibit it. — 
!N"o State and no power on earth has any right to in- 
terfere. This must be so ; otherwise Congress had 
no right to abolish slavery in the District of Colum- 
bia. And, inasmuch as, by the Constitution, Con- 
gress has the right " to exercise exclusive legislation 
over that District in all cases whatsoever,'^ if Con- 
gress have not the right to abolish slavery there, it 
must be because its abolition is not a legitimate sub- 
ject of legislation at all; and, if so, then no State, and 
no government under heaven, has a right to abolish 
slavery ; and thus we should have at least one in- 
defeasible and inalienable right — the right of slavery. 
But there is another aspect of this Southern claim 
which deserves to be considered. It not only makes 

say that he requires first, the extension of the Missouri Compro- 
mise line to the Pacific ; and, also, that he is not satisfied with 
that, but requires, if I understand him correctly, a positive pro- 
vision for the admission of slavery south of that line. And now, 
sir, coming from a slave State, as I do, I owe it to myself, I owe 
it to truth, I owe it to the subject, to say that no earthly power 
could induce me to vote for a specific measure for the introduc- 
tion of slavery where it had not before existed, either south or 
north of that line. Coming, as I do, from a slave State, it is my 
solemn, deliberate, and well-matured determination that no 
power — no earthly power — shall compel me to vote for the posi- 
tive introduction of slavery, either south or north of that line. 
Sir, while you reproach, and justly, too, our British ancestors 
for the introduction of this institution upon the continent of 
America, I am, for one, unwilling that the posterity of the pre- 
sent inhabitants of California and New Mexico shall reproach us 
for doing just what we reproach Great Britain for doing to us." 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. S21 

the law of slavery the supreme law of the land, gives the 
precedence to the laws of the Slave States over those 
of the Free States — ^in the common Territories; — 
but, if the slave code of one State be more severe or 
cruel than that of the others, it gives that code the 
precedence over all. For, suppose that, by the laws 
of one State, the master has the unrestrained power 
of life and death over his slaves, and the slaves are 
allowed no legal marriage ; and, by the laws of an- 
other State, a master is allowed to chastise his slave 
only as he might chastise his child or his apprentice, 
that the testimony of slaves is admitted in evidence, 
and that families are not allowed to be separated; 
and, by the laws of a third State, no persons here- 
after born are to be held in slavery, &c., &c.; — and 
suppose that, in a given Territory, there are emi- 
grants, with their slaves, from those various States, 
and emigrants from Free States. [NTow, in this case, 
what is to be the law in relation to slavery in the 
Territory? There are but two possible courses to 
take. Either the immigrants from each State must 
remain under the laws of the State from which they 
emigrated ; — which, among other anomalies, would 
lead to this, that a man from a Free State would have 
no right to buy or hold a slave in the Territory, while 
his neighbour from a Slave State would have the 
right; — or, some choice must be made; and, in this 
case, according to the Southern claim, no other choice 
could be made but the severest and most cruel slave 
code of all. For, if otherwise, if any other code 
could be constitutionally adopted, then it might be 
the mildest of all — a mere system of apprenticeship ; 
or it might be enacted that no persons born in the 
Territory should be slaves ; or the law of freedom — 



822 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

for that is only one member of the series — might be 
established at once. 

]^ow, the party which elected President Lincoln, 
held it as a part of their creed, that, while they 
religiously abstained from interfering with slavery as 
established in the several States, and would even ac- 
cept the Fugitive Slave Law, as it exists, — in the Ter- 
ritories^ slavery ivas to be prohibited. The South saw 
that, if this were allowed, they should eventually 
lose the control of the General Government, which 
they had enjoyed almost uninterruptedly from the 
beginning. Besides, they professed to think that any 
restriction of slavery must inevitably lead to its final 
extinction. 

" There is not a slaveholder," says Judge Warner 
of Georgia, " in this house or out of it, but who knows 
perfectly well that, whenever slavery is confined 
within certain specified limits, its future existence is 
doomed ; it is only a question of time as to its final 
destruction. You may take any single slaveholding 
county in the Southern States^ in which the great 
staples of cotton and sugar are cultivated to any ex- 
tent, and confine the present slave population within 
the limits of that county ; — such is the rapid natural 
increase of the slaves, and the rapid exhaustion of 
the soil in the cultivation of those crops (which add 
so much to the commercial wealth of the country), 
that in a few years it would be impossible to support 
them within the limits of such county. Both master 
and slave would be starved out ; and what would be 
the practical effect in any one county, the same result 
would happen to all the slaveholding States. Slavery 
cannot be confined within certain specified limits 
without producing the destruction both of master 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 323 

and slave ; it requires fresh lands, plenty of wood 
and water, not only for the comfort and happiness 
of the slave, but for the benefit of the owner." There- 
fore, because a restriction of slavery extension was 
threatened by the party coming into power, the 
slaveholders rebelled. 

2d. Their second demand was that the Abolitionists 
should be silenced. South Carolina, in her declara- 
tion of causes which induced her secession, declares 
that the " non-slaveholding States have denounced as 
sinful the institution of slavery," and concludes '• all 
hope of remedy is rendered vain by the fact that 
public oj^inion at the iSTorth has invested a great polit- 
ical error with the sanctions of a more erroneous 
religious belief" It is abundantly clear that nothing 
would have satisfied the South on this head, so long 
as iJ^orthern men were allowed "to write about 
slavery, to preach about slavery, to lecture about 
slavery, to talk about slavery, to think about slavery." 
To do so must be constituted a crime throughout the 
length and breadth of the land; and though there 
were evidently some politicians at the ISTorth ready to 
yield them this point, and to aid them in gaining it, 
they themselves had too much common sense to be- 
lieve that the free people of the North could ever be 
brought to consent to such a degradation. They 
therefore said : " There is no hope." 

3d. Their third demand was, in substance, that the 
freedom of elections should be surrendered to their 
dictation. South Carolina, in her declaration, set 
forth, as one of the chief causes for her secession, 
" the election of a man to the high office of President 
of the United States Avhose opinions and purposes aro 
hostile to slavery." The flagrant insufficiency of this 



324 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

justification of rebellion cannot be more clearly ex- 
hibited than it was, at the time, by the same Alexander 
II. Stephens, from whom we have heard before. 

" The first question that presents itself is, Shall the 
people of the South secede from the Union in conse- 
quence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presi- 
dency of the United States ? My countrymen, I tell 
you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think 
that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no 
man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is 
sufficient cause for any State to separate from the 
Union. It ought to stand by, and aid still in main- 
taining the Constitution of the country. To make a 
point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw 
from it because a man has been constitutionally 
elected, j9W^s us in the icrong. We are pledged to main- 
tain the Constitution. Many of us have sworn to 
support it. Can we, therefore, for the mere election 
of a man to the Presidency, and that, too, in accord- 
ance with the prescribed form of the Constitution, 
make a point of resistance to the Government with- 
out becomino- the breaker of that sacred instrument 
ourselves — or withdraw ourselves from it ? Would we 
not be in the wrong ? Whatever fate is to befall this 
country, let it never be laid to the charge of the peo- 
ple of the South, and especially to the people of 
Georgia, that we were untrue to our national eiigagements. 
Let the fault and wrong rest upon others. If all our 
hopes are to be blasted, if the Eepublic is to go down, 
let us be found to the last moment standing on the 
deck, with the Constitution of the United States 
waving over our heads. Let the fanatics of the North 
break the Constitution, if such is their fell purpose- 
Let the responsibility be upon them. I shall speak 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 325 

presently more of their acts; but let not the South — 
let us not be the ones to commit the aggression We 
went into the election with this people. The result 
was different from what we wished ; but the election 
has been constitutionally held. "Were we to make a 
point of resistance to the G-overnment, and go out of 
the Union on that account, the record would be made 
up hereafter against us." 

■ But, even if the election of Mr. Lincoln was no 
justification of the rebellion, some are ready to ask 
whether, after all, it would not have been wiser for 
the free people of the North to have refrained from 
voting for Mr. Lincoln, and to have elected some man 
to the Presidency who would have been acceptable to 
the South, and thus to have avoided the rupture of 
our glorious and prosj^erous Union, and all the mis- 
eries and horrors of this deplorable war ? Does this 
seem plausible? How much, then, is our freedom 
worth? How much would we sacrifice for it ? How 
much would we suffer to defend and retain it ? These 
are the real questions. We honour our fathers for 
having braved the privations, sufferings, and perils of 
a seven-years' war rather than pay an unconstitu- 
tional tax of a few pence a pound on tea ; and shall 
we allow another party to dictate to us whom we 
shall or shall not vote for ? Shall we allow ourselves, 
by threats of rebellion and war, war to the knife, to 
be frightened from the exercise of our elective fran- 
chise ? When we are ready to submit to such dicta- 
tion as this, we cannot stop at any other imposition, 
however flagrant, and which will be sure to follow ; 
our liberties are gone ; we are slaves. To insist upon 
the right to elect Mr. Lincoln may seem a small 
thing ; but to insist on the right of free suffrage is 



326 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

everything, if we would be a free people. The elec- 
tion of Mr. Lincoln cannot cost us too much, unless 
our very freedom may cost too much. Better meet 
bravely the loss or mortgaging of all the wealth we 
possess, and be slaughtered by the million on the 
battle-field, than tamely to submit to the degradation 
of havino; our rulers set over us at the dictation of 
Southern slave masters, or of any other party or 
power on earth. 

4th. The final — and often it was made the fore- 
most — demand of those who threatened rebellion, 
was, that the Free States should repeal all their 
^^ personal liberty laws," and leave the free blacks with- 
out protection to the slave-hunters of the South. 

Now, in the first place, the very idea of one State 
undertaking to dictate to another State what laws it 
should make or unmake for the protection of its own 
citizens, was a piece of the grossest, most unconsti- 
tutional and insolent impertinence. If the laws of 
any of the Free States were alleged to be unconsti- 
tutional, the appeal to the Supreme Court of the 
United States was open and unobstructed ; and had 
that court pronounced them so, they w^ould have 
been peaceably and quietly annulled. This was the 
proper and regular course to have pursued. No Free 
State had ever attempted or threatened to hinder or 
resist the judgment or the process of the Suj)reme 
Court. Yet there Avas kept up, both North and 
South, a persistent outcry about the unconstitution- 
ality of these "personal libert}" bills," — though they 
were enacted, ostensibly at least, for the protection 
of free citizens from kidnappers 

Let us look at the conduct of South Carolina in an 
analogous case. It is commonly insisted by slave- 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. o27 

masters at the South, and their white slaves at the 
North, that the Constitution guarantees the property 
in shaves; — as though that were the sum and sub- 
stance of the whole instrument. 'Now the fact is, 
that the Constitution nowhere mentions slaves or 
slavery, or recognizes men as property ; and if sla- 
very were utterly abolished, the Constitution would 
not need to be altered in a single particular. The 
Constitution, in one clause, assumes that there may 
be ''persons" other than "free persons;'' (Art. I. sec. 
2 ;) and, in another clause, it provides that " J^o per- 
son held to service or labour in one State, under the 
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in conse- 
quence of any law or regulation therein, be dis- 
charged from such service or labour, but shall be 
delivered up on claim of the party to whom such 
service or labour is due,'' — a clause which speaks 
only of " persons" who '• owe service or labour," and 
is just as applicable to apprentices as to slaves. And 
this is all that the American Constitution says about slaves 
or slavery. But in the same section with this last 
cited clause, which is held to be such a solemn gua- 
ranty of slave property, the Constitution contains 
another clause equally solemn, in these words : " The 
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the pri- 
vileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
States." 

Yet, in open defiance of this provision of the Con- 
stitution, free persons of colour, citizens of Massa- 
chusetts, and, according to the institutions of that 
Commonwealth, entitled to equal privileges with 
other citizens, being in service as mariners, and 
touching at the port of Charleston, in South Caro- 
lina, have been seized, and with no allegation against 



328 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

them, except of entering this port in the discharge 
of their rightful business, have been cast into prison, 
and there detained during the delay of the vessel. 
This is by virtue of a statute of South Carolina, 
passed in 1823, which further declares, that in failure 
of the captain to pay the expenses, these freemen 
" shall be seized and taken as absolute slaves," one 
moiety of the proceeds of their sale to belong to the 
sheriif. Against all remonstrance — against the offi- 
cial opinion of Mr. Wirt, as Attorney-general of the 
United States, declaring it unconstitutional — against 
the solemn judgment of Mr. Justice Johnson, of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, himself a slave- 
master and citizen of South Carolina, also pro- 
nouncing it unconstitutional — this statute, which is 
an obvious injury to Northern ship-owners, as it is 
an outrage to the mariners whom it seizes, has been 
upheld to this day by South Carolina. 

But this is not all. Massachusetts, in order to ob- 
tain for her citizens that protection which was denied, 
and especially to save them from the dread penalty 
of being sold into slavery, appointed a citizen of 
South Carolina to act as her agent for this purpose, 
and to bring suits in the Circuit Court of the United 
States in order to try the constitutionality of this 
pretension. Owing to the sensibility of the people 
in that State, this agent declined to render this sim- 
ple service. Massachusetts next selected one of her 
own sons, a venerable citizen, who had already served 
with honour in the lower House of Congress, and 
who was of admitted eminence as a lawyer, the Hon. 
Samuel Hoar, of Concord, to visit Charleston, and to 
do what the agent first appointed had shrunk from 
doing. This excellent gentleman, beloved by all who 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 329 

knew him, gentle in manners as he was firm in cha- 
racter, and with a countenance that was in itself a 
letter of recommendation, arrived at Charleston, ac- 
companied only by his daughter. Straightway all 
South Carolina was convulsed. According to a story 
in Boswell's Johnson, all the inhabitants of St. Kilda, 
a remote island of the Hebrides, on the approach of 
a stranger, " catch cold f but in South Carolina it is 
a fever that they '' catch." The Governor at the 
time made his arrival the subject of a special mes- 
sage to the Legislature, the Legislature all " caught" 
the fever, and swiftly adopted resolutions calling 
upon "his Excellency the Governor to expel from 
its territory the said agent, after due notice to de- 
part," and promising " to sustain the Executive au- 
thority in any measures it may adopt for the pur- 
poses aforesaid." 

Meanwhile the fever raged in Charleston. The agent 
of Massachusetts was first accosted in the streets by 
a person unknown to him, who, flourishing a bludgeon 
in his hand, (the bludgeon always shows itself where 
slavery is in question,) cried out : " You had better be 
travelling, and the sooner the better for you ; if you 
stay here until to-morrow morning, you will feel 
something you will not like, I'm thinking." ISText 
came threats of an attack, during the following night, 
on the hotel in which he was lodged ; then a request 
from the landlord that he should quit, in order to pre- 
serve the hotel itself from the impending danger of 
an infuriated mob ; then a committee of slave-masters, 
who politely proposed to conduct him to the boat. 
Thus arrested in his simple errand of good will, this 
venerable public servant, whoso aj)pearance alone — • 
like that of the " grave and pious man" mentioned by 
28* 



230 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

Virgil — would haA^^. softened any mob not inspired by 
slavery, yielded to the ejectment proposed — ^precisely 
as the prisoner yields to the officers of the law — and 
left Charleston, while a person in the crowd was 
heard to offer himself as " the leader of a tar-and-fea- 
ther gang, to be called into the service of the city on 
the occasion." ISTor is this all. The Legislature a 
second time " caught" the fever, and, yielding to its 
influence, passed another statute, forbidding, under 
severe penalties, any person within the State from 
accepting a commission to befriend these coloured 
mariners ; and under penalties severer still, extend- 
ing even to imprisonment for life, prohibiting any 
person " on his own behalf, or by virtue of any au- 
thority of an}^ State," to come within South Carolina 
for this purpose ; and then, to complete its work, the 
Legislature took away the writ of habeas corpus from 
all such mariners. 

Such is a simple narrative founded on authentic 
documents.* 

Such has been the conduct of South Carolina, and 
yet Massachusetts neither seceded nor rebelled ; and 
Northern men generally seemed disposed to pocket 
the insult, and indeed began to be strangely oblivious 
of its very existence. Yet this same South Carolina, 
in her declaration, charges the violation of the Con- 
stitution in the matter of the rendition of fugitive 
servants, as one of the causes of her secession; — 
although she probably never lost half a dozen slaves, 
and perhaps never a solitary slave, by such violation. 

The fact is, that, though the Fugitive Slave Law 
of 1850 was clearly not required by the Constitution, 
and was hold by a large number at the North to bo 

* See Sumner's speech of 1860. 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 331 

positively unconstitutional, and so declared by the 
solemn judgment of the Supreme Court of one of the 
States, — ^yet, according to the testimony of Stephen 
A. Douglas, 710 law of the United States was more faith- 
fully or efficiently executed throughout the country. In- 
deed it was looked upon, by many Northern as well 
as Southern men, and by some Presidents of the 
United States, as being the law of all laws, — the law 
to be executed at all hazards and at whatever cost. 

But how was it with the laws prohibiting the im- 
portation of slaves by the African slave trade ? Were 
not those laws also constitutional — plainly author- 
ized by the Constitution, after the year 1808 ? And 
yet, in direct violation of these laws, and with the ap- 
parent connivance of the Government itself, was not 
cargo after cargo of these slaves introduced into the 
Southern States? and did not agricultural societies 
offer public premiums for the best specimens of na- 
tive Africans brought directly from their homes? 
And we of the ISTorth took all this as a matter of 
course. Yet these very men, upon annulling the Con- 
stitution of their country, and rebelling against its 
Government, have the effrontery to allege in justifica- 
tion, that certain constitutional laws had been vio- 
lated at the North ; and some among us, alas ! with- 
out waiting for a decree of the proper tribunal, were 
ready to cry peccavimus, and fall on our knees to ask 
forgiveness. The truth is, that, notwithstanding all 
the belligerent passages which our "Christian Bishop" 
has gleaned from Parker, Emerson, and a few others, 
— we Northern people are essentially a Union-loving, 
a law-loving and a law-abiding people ; and the South- 
ern slaveholders have counted upon it ; we are lovers 
and followers of peace; and the slaveholders have 



332 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

taken advantage of it ; we enter into war reluctantly, 
and are with difficulty trained to it ; and to this day, 
on the floor of the Senate, the taunt is familiarly east 
into the teeth of Massachusetts, by such men as the 
Senators from Kentucky, that her people are not 
ready to fight. No insinuation can be more utterly 
groundless than that Massachusetts, or any Northern 
State; or the Eepublican party, or the anti-slavery 
men anywhere, were making ready to inaugurate a 
rebellion or a civil war for the abolition of slavery. 
Whereas, it is notorious that the Southern conspira- 
tors, and particularly in South Carolina, had been 
plotting and preparing their treason and secession for 
thirty years past. 

The reasons alleged by the slaveholders in justifi- 
cation of their rebellion, are mere plausible pretexts 
caught at for the moment. If they were all true, 
they would not suffice to justify the rebellion. What 
must be its character, then, when they are all shown 
to be untenable or false ? 

As I have said, slavery is at the bottom of them 
all. And if slavery were removed, no occasion of 
quarrel could be found. It is sometimes thought im- 
possible to restore the old Union, on account of the 
sectional bitterness engendered by the war. But, if 
slavery were once abolished, there is no reason what- 
ever that South Carolinians and Virginians may not 
live as fraternally with Pennsylvanians, New York- 
ers, and New Englanders, as these do with each 
other, or with Ohians and Indianians. The country 
ivas formed by nature to be one, and must be one on some 
terms or other. 

On the one hand, the question has been much dis- 
cussed, how the seceded States may be restored to 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 

the Union ; and, on the other hand, it has been con- 
tended that, as secession is a nullity, as the States 
have never been out of the Union, there is no need 
of any restoration at all. If the disputants would 
define exactly what they mean by a " State," they 
would find very little left to contend about. A 
" State" may be regarded as a certain extent of ter- 
ritory, or as a certain aggregation of people, or as a 
certain political organism ; or rather, all these ele- 
ments, and particularly the last, must be combined 
in the true and proper sense of the word. 'Now, so 
far as a " State" refers to a certain extent of terri- 
tory, undoubtedly the seceded States are still in the 
Union ; every inch of their territory is in the United 
States, and is under the jurisdiction of the United 
States. 

So far as a " State" refers to the people inhabiting 
a certain territory, the seceded States are no less in 
the Union ; every man, woman and child in them is, 
and has always continued, subject to the laws of the 
United States. Moreover, the people, the loyal peo- 
ple of each seceded State are, potentially, sovereign 
as before, and may recover all the constitutional rights 
and powers of the people of a sovereign State of the 
Union. But, at present, they have no organs by which 
that sovereignty can be exercised. 

As a people cannot exist as a State without a ter- 
ritor}^, so they cannot act as a State without an or- 
ganization. So far as a " State" refers to the politi- 
cal organization of the people of a certain territory — 
the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of 
their Government, — the seceded States are no longer in 
the Union; their existing organizations of govern- 
ment are, under our Constitution, nullities; their 



334 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

governors, legislatures, and judges arc usurpers, are 
sworn to maintain the so-called Confederate Consti- 
tution and not the Constitution of the United States; 
those States are destitute of any legitimate govern- 
ments under the Constitution of the United States ; 
the people cannot proceed, constitutionally, to re-es- 
tablish such governments by the mere spontaneous 
movement of private individuals and without any 
legal authorization ; if their present pretended gov- 
ernments are nullities, any enactment, commission, 
or writ of election proceeding from them, is also a 
nullity ; the only way to start, therefore, is by au- 
thorization from the Government of the United 
States ; the Government of the United States is the only 
legitimate authority that now exists in the seceded States, 
the only sound portion of their political organization; from 
the Government of the United States, therefore, the 
vis medicatrix, which is to restore their political sys- 
tems, now lying paralyzed, must proceed. In this 
gense,— of re-establishing their political organizations 
as States in the Union, — the seceded States need to 
be restored to the Union; and they can be thus 
restored only under authority derived from the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. Whether this autho- 
rity is to emanate from a Proclamation of the Presi- 
dent or from an act of Congress, may be a very im- 
portant, but is still a subordinate, question. I shall 
not stop to discuss it. 

In short, then, secession took no State out of the 
Union either as a territory or as a people ; but, as a 
political organization, it did take every seceded State 
out of the Union, — ^that is to say, it left the State no 
organization in the Union, and the organization it 
has substituted is out of the Union; is, dejure, spu- 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 335 

rioiis, illegitimate, unconstitutional, null; and de facto 
hostile and rebellious. Neither the National Consti- 
tution nor national self-respect will allow the United 
States Government to recognize or in any manner 
to treat with such treasonable organizations. Such a 
recognition would itself be an acknowledgment of 
the dissolution of the Union. The rebellious States 
are all constitutionally and legally in the Union ; 
but, in order to resume their 'political functions as mem- 
bers of the Union, they must be organized de novo. 
In this sense and so far, they must be treated as 
"Territories." This reorganization must be based 
upon some enabling act or some legitimating autho- 
rity proceeding from the Grovernment of the United 
States. And such enabling act or legitimating au- 
thority cannot, without absurdity, be forbidden to 
prescribe such conditions, restrictions, and modes of 
procedure in the process of reorganization, as the 
rebellion itself has demonstrated to be absolutely 
necessary to the national existence, the nation al 
Union, and national peace. And what loyal people 
will object to such conditions as those? 

The Constitution has established a government, a 
SUPREME, federal government; but it has omitted to 
make any special provision for the case either of the 
secession or of the restoration of States. Of course 
therefore, any process of restoration, and that above 
proposed among the rest, must be extra-constitutional. 
But the assertion that such a process is wn-constitu- 
tional, that it is violative of the Constitution, must 
rest ultimately upon the monstrous doctrine that, 
under the Coristitution, any State may claim the right not 
only to secede with impunity, hid, having seceded, to re- 
turn to the Union at pleasure. It is not denied, how- 



836 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

ever, that a reorganization of a State government 
effected by the spontaneous action of the loyal people, 
if so it be possible to effect it, might be legitimated 
by the subsequent recognition of the Federal Gov- 
ernment. But, on the other hand, if the present rebel 
officials in any seceded State should take the oath 
required by the Constitution of the United States, 
might they be recognized as the constitutional gov- 
ernment of such a State ? To this I answer, No ; 
because by previously taking and acting upon an oath 
to support the " Confederate" government, which was 
levying war against the United States, they have all 
aided and abetted the rebellion, and are guilty of 
treason — guilty by solemn official acts. And what 
can be more unreasonable or unconstitutional than 
that a body of confederate ringleaders in treason and 
rebellion should coolly wash their hands, and claim 
to be forthwith recognized as the constitutional gov- 
ernm.ent of a sovereign State in the Union ? 

Eut still the question is urged, AVhat right has the 
Federal Government, under the Constitution, to require 
the abandonment of slavery as a condition of recog- 
nizing a State reorganization ? Where does the Con- 
stitution delegate such a power? I answer, that 
when men have appealed to the arbitrament of arms, 
they cannot claim for themselves the rights of peace ; 
rebels cannot, without effrontery, claim the constitu- 
tional privileges of dutiful citizens. And who but 
their sympathizing friends will have the effrontery to 
make the claim for them? If it be said that even 
rebels are not to be wronged, and that the claim is 
made in the name of justice, let the rebels and their 
:idvocates thank Heaven that the Federal Government 
is not disposed to deal with them as the strictness of 



justice requires, but only as necessity and mercy 
demand. In this case the rights of war, the stern 
necessities of self-preservation, modify and control 
the rights of peace. As I have already said, the ease 
is extra-constitutional. Besides, I beg to invite the 
attention of those who so j)ersistently urge a strict 
construction of the Constitution in favour of slave- 
holding rebels and traitors, to some other constitu- 
tional questions which they may do well to settle 
before they so confidently draw their pro-slavery con- 
clusion. 

The Constitution nowhere confers upon the Fed- 
eral Grovernment the power to purchase foreign ter- 
ritory. Shall we, therefore, condemn, as a flagrant 
violation of the Constitution, Jefferson's purchase 
of Louisiana, or the later purchase of California and 
New Mexico and Arizona ? The Constitution no- 
where confers on the Federal Government the power 
to suspend the writ of habeas corpus ; yet the Consti- 
tution itself takes for granted that the government, 
as such, possesses that power; and restricts and re- 
gulates its exercise. The Constitution does not 
expressly confer on the Federal Government even 
the power to suppress insurrections and put down 
rebellion ; but it takes for granted that the govern- 
ment, as such, possesses that power ; and points out 
the process and means by which it may be carried 
into effect ; but even then, the Constitution provides 
only for calling forth the militia, and nowhere ex- 
pressly delegates to the Federal Government the 
power to use the army and navy for the suppression 
of insurrection or rebellion ; — manifestly presuming, 
as a matter of course, that no government having an 
army and navy at its disposal, could, without absur- 
29 



338 SOUTHERN SLAVERY. 

ditj, be sui^posed incompetent to use them for such 
a purpose. So thought President Jackson, or he 
would not have signed the "Force BiU." The Con- 
stitution nowhere confers, and yet it expressly re- 
stricts, the power of the Federal Government, to 
prohibit the migration or importation of such per- 
sons as any of the then existing States should think 
proper to admit. The Constitution expressly pro- 
vides that " the right of the people to keep and bear 
arms shall not be infringed ;" and it nowhere autho- 
rizes the Federal Government to require rebels to 
lay down their arms, any more than it authorizes 
that Government to require them to liberate their 
slaves. But whatever is plainly and imperatively 
demanded, not only for the general welfare, but for 
the national existence, the maintenance of the Union, 
and the public safety, the Constitution cannot be 
reasonably interpreted to forbid. It established a 
government, and endued that government with au- 
thority " to make all laws necessary and proper for 
carrying into execution its appropriate powers;'^ — 
including, of course, whatever may be necessary and 
proper for its self-preservation ; for, else, how could 
those powers be carried into execution ? The Con- 
stitution is not a felo de se. 

There are but two modes of terminating the pre- 
sent struggle. The first is, that the IS'orth should be 
victorious. The consequence would be, the Union 
restored with universal Emancipation. The ultimate 
result, — peace secure, progressive civilization, the 
triumph of free government, a glorious and happy re- 
public, which would be the pride of the world and the 
terror of oppressors. The second is, that the South 
should be victorious. The consequence would be, 



SLAVERY AND THE REBELLION. 339 

either the law of slavery established throughout the 
whole country at once, or the Union for a time dis- 
integrated only to be subsequently re-established 
with universal slavery. The ultimate result, — inter- 
minable wars, foreign and domestic, governmental 
despotism, and finally utter barbarism ; leaving the 
once free and happy America to be a by- word and a 
hissing among the nations of the earth to the end of 
time. 

Any compromise with slavery is, in the first place, 
a triumph to treason, and, in the second place, would 
end in substantially the same process as that last de- 
scribed. Slavery is an element of so corrupting and 
insidious a character, that the country cannot be safe 
while it exists in its bosom. If it remained but in a 
single corner, it would make itself the supreme law 
of the land. Our only electiofi lies between the universal 
law of freedom and the universal law of slavery. And 
the question reaches further than to the blacks; 
either we must be slaves side by side with the blacks^ 
or the blaclcs must be free side by side with their 
masters. My countrymen, which will you choose ? 

/ 



APPENDIX. 



Note. — In reporting the Mormon Elder's discourse, the fol- 
lowing passage was overlooked at page 209 : 

"It is abundantly evident, also, that the so-much-boasted 
modern elevation of woman, the chivalrous regard for her which 
characterizes Christian Europe and America, is not derived 
from the Bible, or from the teachings or spirit of Christianity, 
but from a heathen origin, from the Romans, or, more prob- 
ably, from the customs of the northern barbarians. In proof 
of this, see the masterly interpretation of the Tenth Com- 
mandment by the Bishop of Vermont, where he demonstrates 
that, by the law of God, the wife is reckoned as a man's prop- 
erty, along with his man servant and maid-servant, his ox and 
his ass. 

The citations from St. Augustine, on pages 144 and 145, are 
here appended at large : 

Aug. in Epist. Joan, ad Parth. III. 2040. 

Radix omnium malorum avaritia. (Tim. vi. 10.) Initium 
omnis peccati Superhia. (Eccli. x. 15.) 

Sic ergo debet esse Christianus, ut non glorietur super alios 
homines. Dedit enim tibi Deus esse super bestias, id est, 
meliorem esse quam bestias. Hoc naturale habes ; semper 
melior eris quam bestia. Si vis melior esse quam alius homo, 
invidebis ei quando tibi esse videbis ucqualem. Debes velle 
omnes homines aequales tibi esse. . . Audi apostolum diccntem 
de visceribus charitatis : Vellem omnes homines esse sicut meip- 
29* 341 



342 APPENDIX. 

sum. Quomodo volebat omnes esse aequales? Ideo erat 
omnibus superior, quia charitate optabat omnes aequales. 
Excessit ergo homo modum ; avarior voluit esse ut super 
homines esset, qui supra pecora factus est: et ipsa est su- 
perbia. 

Aug. Serm. XXI. V. 145. 

Servum tuum manumittendum manu ducis in ecclesiam. 
Fit silentium, libellus tuus recitatur, aut fit desiderii tui pros- 
ecutio. Dicis te servum manumittere, quod tibi in omnibus 
servaverit fidem. Hoc diligas, hoc honoras, hoc donas premio 
libertatis : quidquid potes facis, facis liberum, quia non potes 
facere sempiternum. Deus tuus clamat ad te et in servo tuo 
convincit te : dicit tibi in corde tuo, Duxisti servum tuum de 
domo tua ad domum meam : vis eum de domo mea liberum 
revocare in domum tuam : tu quare male servis in domo mea ? 
Das illi quod potes ; permitto tibi quod possum : tu facis liber- 
um servantem tibi fidem ; ego te facio sempiternum, si serva- 
veris mihi fidem. Quid adhuc argumentaris contra me in 
animo tuo ? Redde domino tuo, quod laudas in servo tuo. 

Aug. Serm. CCCLYI. V. 1576. 

Hoc agitur, hoc sine dilatione peragendum est, ut illi ser- 
vuli dividantur, manumittantur, et sic det Ecclesiae, ut eorum 
excipiat alimentum. 

Aug. de Serm. Dom. in Monte. III. 1260. 

Si quis vuU judicio tecum contendere et tiinicam tuam tollere. 
Omnia ergo ilia intelligantur, de quibus judicio nobiscum 
contendi potest, ita ut a nostro jure in jus illius transeant, 
qui contendit vel pro quo contendit ; sicuti est vestis, domus, 
fundus, jumentum, et generaliter omnis pecunia. Quod utrum 
etiam de servis accipiendum sit magna quaestio est. Non 
enim Christianum oportet sic possidere servum quomodo 
equum aut argentum : quanquam fieri possit ut majore pretio 
valeat equus quam servus, et multo magis aliquid aureum vel 
argenteum. Sed ille servus, si rectius et honestius et ad Deura 
colendum accommodatius abs te domino educatur, aut rcgitur, 



APPENDIX. 343 

quam ab illo potest qui eum cupit conferre ; nescio utrum 
quisnam dic-ere audeat, ut vestimentum eum debere contemni. 
Hominem namque homo tanquam seipsum diligere debet. 

Aug. De Civ. Dei. VII. 243. 

Hinc itaque etiam pax domestica oritur, id est, ordinataim- 
perandi obediendique concordia cohabitantium. Imperant 
enim qui consulunt: sicut vir uxori, parentes filiis, domini 
servis. Obediunt an tern quibus consulitur: sicut mulieres 
maritis, filii parentibus, servi dominis. Sed in domo justi 
viventis ex fide, et adhuc ab ilia coelesti civitate peregrinantis, 
etiam qui imperant serviunt eis quibus yidentur imperare. 
Neque enim dominandi cupiditate imperant, sed ojfficio consu- 
lendi; nee principandi superbia, sed providendi misericordia. 

Hoc naturalis ordo praescribit; ita Deus hominem condidit. 
Nam Dominetur, inquit, pisciuiii mai^is, et volatilium coeli, et 
omnium repentium quae repunt super terrain. (Gen. i. 26.) 
Rationalem factum ad imaginem suam noluit nisi irrationa- 
bilibus dominari : non hominem homini, sed hominem pecori. 

Ibid, 244. 

Quocirca etiamsi habuerunt servos justi patres nostri, sic 
quidem administrabant domesticam pacem, ut secundum haec 
temporalia bona, filiorum sortem a servorum conditione dis- 
tinguerent ; ad Deum autem colendum, in quo aeterna bona 
speranda sunt, omnibus domus suae membris pari dilectione 
consulerent. 



THE END. 



ai.77-2 



